Stockfish no progress in 2month and half , why ?

[Eelco de Groot]

And I don't understand endless tuning of time management. Isn't it so easy thing once programmed no need to ever change?

The new TM in Stockfish was recently introduced as a "simplification", but it's actually a complex change that is not necessarily an improvement.

Marco is "threatening" to revert it https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... /pull/1249

Stockfish Master played a game during 187 moves yesterday, with no increment. 60 ms overhead was enough but I think Shredder's interface adds a little to that

[pgn][Event "2 Minutes/Game"]
[Site "Engine Match"]
[Date "2017.09.14"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Kaissa"]
[Black "Master"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. d4 {book 0s} Nf6 {book 0s} 2. c4 {book 0s} e6 {book 0s}
3. Nf3 {book 0s} Bb4+ {book 0s} 4. Bd2 {book 0s} a5 {book
0s} 5. g3 {book 0s} d5 {book 0s} 6. Qc2 {book 0s} Nc6 {book
0s} 7. Bg2 {book 0s} dxc4 {book 0s} 8. Qxc4 {book 0s} Qd5
{book 0s} 9. Qd3 {+0.31/23 5s} Qf5 {+0.23/20 4s} 10. Qxf5
{+0.32/22 1s} exf5 {+0.35/23 3s} 11. Nc3 {+0.21/19 0s
(O-O)} Bxc3 {+0.37/22 5s (Be6)} 12. Bxc3 {+0.31/21 1s} O-O
{+0.31/23 3s} 13. Ne5 {+0.36/24 2s} Ne7 {+0.34/23 5s}
14. f3 {+0.49/21 3s (O-O)} Nfd5 {+0.33/22 1s} 15. Kf2
{+0.38/22 6s (Bd2)} Nxc3 {+0.30/21 1s} 16. bxc3 {+0.32/22
2s} Rb8 {+0.33/22 4s (Be6)} 17. Rhc1 {+0.42/21 3s (Rab1)}
b6 {+0.45/24 4s (Be6)} 18. c4 {+0.35/22 3s} f6 {+0.45/24
2s} 19. Nd3 {+0.37/24 2s} Rd8 {+0.45/22 0s} 20. e3
{+0.40/22 0s} Be6 {+0.45/23 5s (g5)} 21. Nf4 {+0.50/21 1s
(Rab1)} Bf7 {+0.58/22 2s} 22. Rab1 {+0.48/22 2s} g5
{+0.50/21 2s} 23. Ne2 {+0.37/20 0s} Kg7 {+0.51/22 3s}
24. f4 {+0.48/23 4s} c6 {+0.57/22 3s} 25. a4 {+0.42/20 0s}
Re8 {+0.49/21 1s (Kg6)} 26. h4 {+0.53/22 2s (Rb2)} h6
{+0.78/22 4s (g4)} 27. Rc2 {+0.47/22 2s (Ng1)} Rec8
{+0.42/18 1s} 28. Rbc1 {+0.40/22 2s (Rcc1)} Be6 {+0.81/20
5s (Rd8)} 29. d5 {+0.86/19 0s (Rb2)} cxd5 {+0.65/20 1s}
30. Nd4 {+0.71/19 0s} Kf7 {+0.84/24 4s} 31. cxd5 {+0.63/23
3s (Bf3)} Rxc2+ {+0.55/20 0s} 32. Rxc2 {+0.84/23 2s} Bxd5
{+0.72/20 0s} 33. Bxd5+ {+0.45/20 0s} Nxd5 {+0.77/25 5s}
34. Nxf5 {+0.80/22 0s} gxh4 {+0.79/23 3s (gxf4)} 35. e4
{+0.84/22 1s} hxg3+ {+1.07/23 2s} 36. Kxg3 {+0.84/23 0s}
Nb4 {+0.93/20 0s} 37. Rc7+ {+0.92/24 1s} Kf8 {+1.17/24 1s}
38. Rh7 {+0.98/21 0s} Kg8 {+1.15/22 0s} 39. Ra7 {+1.25/22
1s} Kf8 {+1.06/23 1s (b5)} 40. Nxh6 {+0.80/24 4s (Rh7)} b5
{+1.30/23 2s (Rc8)} 41. Rxa5 {+0.81/23 1s (Ng4)} bxa4
{+1.27/23 0s} 42. Ng4 {+1.05/24 3s} Rb6 {+1.27/23 0s (Nc6)}
43. Rxa4 {+1.33/22 0s} Nd3 {+1.27/25 1s} 44. Ra8+ {+1.40/22
1s} Ke7 {+1.27/24 0s} 45. Ra7+ {+1.34/25 1s} Kd8 {+1.27/24
2s (Kf8)} 46. Ra5 {+1.40/27 5s} Nc1 {+1.27/24 1s} 47. f5
{+1.40/27 1s} Ke7 {+1.28/24 2s (Ke8)} 48. Ra7+ {+1.40/26 1s
(Kh4)} Kf8 {+1.31/25 1s (Ke8)} 49. Kf2 {+1.40/28 1s (Ra3)}
Rd6 {+1.28/24 0s} 50. Rc7 {+1.33/31 6s (Ra4)} Nd3+
{+1.29/26 0s} 51. Ke3 {+1.33/30 1s (Ke2)} Nb2 {+1.29/28 0s}
52. Rc8+ {+1.33/29 0s (Rc2)} Ke7 {+1.28/28 0s} 53. Rc2
{+1.33/29 0s (Rc7+)} Nd1+ {+1.28/25 0s (Na4)} 54. Kf3
{+1.33/25 0s (Kf4)} Rd3+ {+1.28/25 2s} 55. Kf4 {+1.33/27
0s} Rd6 {+1.28/26 0s} 56. Rc7+ {+1.33/26 0s} Kf8 {+1.28/26
0s} 57. Rb7 {+1.33/27 0s (Rc5)} Nc3 {+1.28/26 0s} 58. Rb3
{+1.33/26 0s (Rb4)} Na4 {+1.28/27 0s} 59. Ne3 {+1.33/26 0s
(Rb8+)} Nc5 {+1.27/23 0s (Rd4)} 60. Rb8+ {+1.34/27 0s
(Rc3)} Kg7 {+1.08/19 0s} 61. Nd5 {+1.34/26 0s} Ra6
{+0.97/17 0s} 62. Rc8 {+1.32/28 0s} Nd3+ {+0.97/20 0s}
63. Kg3 {+1.29/26 0s} Ne5 {+0.91/19 0s} 64. Rc3 {+1.34/31
0s (Re8)} Ra7 {+0.73/24 0s (Rc6)} 65. Rb3 {+0.90/32 1s
(Kf4)} Nd7 {+0.81/26 0s} 66. Rc3 {+0.77/30 0s (Kf3)} Ne5
{+0.72/24 0s} 67. Kf4 {+0.77/31 0s} Kf7 {+0.73/23 0s}
68. Rc8 {+0.77/31 3s (Rg3)} Nd3+ {+0.73/25 1s} 69. Ke3
{+0.77/30 0s} Ne5 {+0.73/23 0s} 70. Kf4 {+0.77/31 0s} Nd3+
{+0.73/24 0s} 71. Ke3 {+0.77/30 0s (Kg3)} Ne5 {+0.73/25 0s}
72. Rc3 {+0.77/29 0s (Kd2)} Ng4+ {+0.73/25 0s (Kg7)}
73. Kf4 {+0.77/31 0s} Ne5 {+0.81/26 0s} 74. Rb3 {+0.77/31
0s (Rg3)} Nd7 {+0.81/27 0s} 75. Kf3 {+0.87/28 0s (Rh3)} Kf8
{+0.81/25 0s (Ne5+)} 76. Kf4 {+0.77/26 0s (Ke3)} Kg7
{+0.81/27 0s} 77. Rb5 {+0.78/27 0s (Rc3)} Kf7 {+0.81/27 0s
(Kf8)} 78. Rb4 {+0.77/27 0s (Rb3)} Kg7 {+0.81/26 0s}
79. Rb3 {+0.77/28 0s (Rc4)} Kf7 {+0.78/27 0s} 80. Rh3
{+0.77/28 0s} Kg7 {+0.78/24 0s} 81. Rg3+ {+0.77/28 0s
(Rc3)} Kf7 {+0.85/30 0s} 82. Rg2 {+0.77/22 0s (Rh3)} Nc5
{+0.85/25 0s (Ne5)} 83. Rc2 {+1.27/19 0s} Nd3+ {+0.74/24
0s} 84. Kg4 {+0.93/15 0s (Ke3)} Ne5+ {+0.93/18 0s (Kg7)}
85. Kh5 {+1.05/21 0s} Kg7 {+0.80/18 0s} 86. Rb2 {+0.94/16
0s} Nc4 {+0.75/17 0s (Ra6)} 87. Rg2+ {+0.65/19 0s} Kf7
{+0.65/15 0s} 88. Rg6 {+0.66/22 0s} Ra6 {+0.67/17 0s}
89. Rh6 {+0.70/20 0s (Kh6)} Ne5 {+0.47/19 0s} 90. Rh7+
{+0.70/23 0s} Kf8 {+0.37/14 0s} 91. Rb7 {+0.70/23 0s} Rd6
{+0.48/19 0s (Nc4)} 92. Rb6 {+0.70/26 0s (Ra7)} Rxb6
{+0.73/26 0s} 93. Nxb6 {+0.70/27 0s} Nd3 {+0.75/22 0s
(Ke7)} 94. Nd5 {+0.70/26 0s (Kg4)} Kf7 {+0.73/25 0s}
95. Kg4 {+0.70/26 0s} Ne5+ {+0.73/25 0s} 96. Kf4 {+0.70/29
0s (Kg3)} Nc4 {+0.80/27 0s} 97. Kg4 {+0.70/31 0s (Kf3)} Na5
{+0.80/26 0s (Ne5+)} 98. Kf3 {+0.70/27 0s (Kg3)} Nc4
{+0.80/29 0s (Nc6)} 99. Kf4 {+0.70/31 0s (Kg4)} Ne5
{+0.79/27 0s} 100. Kg3 {+0.70/32 0s (Ke3)} Nd3 {+0.80/30 0s
(Kg7)} 101. Kg4 {+0.70/29 0s (Kf3)} Nc5 {+0.80/28 0s
(Ne5+)} 102. Kf3 {+0.70/31 0s (Kf4)} Nd3 {+0.80/28 0s
(Nd7)} 103. Kg3 {+0.70/30 0s (Ke3)} Ne5 {+0.80/32 0s}
104. Kf4 {+0.70/33 0s (Kf2)} Nd3+ {+0.80/30 0s} 105. Ke3
{+0.70/32 0s} Ne5 {+0.79/27 0s} 106. Ke2 {+0.70/32 0s
(Kd4)} Nc4 {+0.79/27 0s (Nd7)} 107. Kf2 {+0.70/32 0s (Kf3)}
Ne5 {+0.79/26 0s} 108. Nc3 {+0.70/31 0s (Ke3)} Ng4+
{+0.79/25 0s (Nd7)} 109. Kf3 {+0.70/35 0s (Kg3)} Ne5+
{+0.79/28 0s} 110. Kf2 {+0.70/34 0s} Nd3+ {+0.78/24 0s
(Nd7)} 111. Kg3 {+0.70/30 0s (Ke3)} Nb4 {+0.78/15 0s (Nc5)}
112. Kf3 {+0.70/30 0s (Nd1)} Ke7 {+0.78/20 0s (Nd3)}
113. Nd1 {+0.70/29 0s} Nc2 {+0.78/18 0s (Nd3)} 114. Nf2
{+0.70/30 0s} Kd6 {+0.78/22 0s (Nd4+)} 115. Ng4 {+0.70/25
0s} Ke7 {+0.80/18 0s} 116. Ke2 {+0.70/25 0s} Nd4+ {+0.78/22
0s} 117. Kd3 {+0.70/27 0s (Ke3)} Nf3 {+0.78/22 0s (Nc6)}
118. Ke3 {+0.70/24 0s} Ne1 {+0.78/20 0s (Ng5)} 119. Kd4
{+0.70/23 0s (Nf2)} Nc2+ {+0.78/21 0s} 120. Kd3 {+0.70/26
0s} Ne1+ {+0.78/17 0s} 121. Kd4 {+0.70/28 0s (Ke2)} Nc2+
{+0.78/19 0s} 122. Kd3 {+0.70/26 0s (Kc3)} Ne1+ {+0.78/22
0s} 123. Kd2 {+0.70/29 0s (Kc4)} Nf3+ {+0.73/22 0s}
124. Ke3 {+0.70/26 0s} Ne1 {+0.73/15 0s} 125. Nf2 {+0.70/27
0s (Kf4)} Nc2+ {+0.75/23 0s} 126. Kd3 {+0.70/23 0s} Ne1+
{+0.75/16 0s (Nb4+)} 127. Ke3 {+0.70/29 0s} Nc2+ {+0.79/22
0s} 128. Kd3 {+0.70/23 0s (Kd2)} Ne1+ {+0.80/18 0s (Nb4+)}
129. Ke2 {+0.70/28 0s} Nc2 {+0.80/16 0s} 130. Ng4 {+0.70/27
0s (Kd2)} Nd4+ {+0.80/18 0s} 131. Kd3 {+0.70/27 0s} Nf3
{+0.80/16 0s (Nc6)} 132. Ne3 {+0.70/26 0s (Kc3)} Ne5+
{+0.79/14 0s} 133. Ke2 {+0.70/24 0s} Kd6 {+0.78/15 0s
(Kf7)} 134. Kd2 {+0.70/18 0s (Kf2)} Kc5 {+0.70/14 0s (Nc6)}
135. Kc3 {+0.25/20 0s} Kd6 {+0.70/19 0s (Nf3)} 136. Nc4+
{+0.77/15 0s} Nxc4 {+0.64/17 0s} 137. Kxc4 {+0.71/15 0s}
Kc6 {+0.67/20 0s} 138. Kd3 {+0.70/18 0s (Kc3)} Kc7
{+0.58/14 0s} 139. Ke2 {+0.70/19 0s} Kd8 {+0.54/13 0s}
140. Kf3 {+0.62/20 0s (Kd2)} Ke7 {+0.53/16 0s (Ke8)}
141. Kg4 {+0.62/22 0s (Ke3)} Kf7 {+0.52/17 0s (Kf8)}
142. Kf4 {+0.62/21 0s (Kg3)} Ke7 {+0.52/16 0s (Ke8)}
143. Ke3 {+0.62/23 0s} Kd7 {+0.52/10 0s} 144. Kd3 {+0.62/19
0s (Kf2)} Kc7 {+0.50/15 0s} 145. Kd4 {+0.62/20 0s (Ke2)}
Kd6 {+0.42/12 0s (Kd8)} 146. Ke3 {+0.62/21 0s} Ke7
{+0.42/10 0s (Kd7)} 147. Kf4 {+0.62/22 0s} Kf7 {+0.41/13 0s
(Ke8)} 148. Kf3 {+0.62/21 0s} Ke8 {+0.41/12 0s (Ke7)}
149. Ke3 {+0.62/22 0s (Ke2)} Kd7 {+0.41/17 0s} 150. Kd4
{+0.62/17 0s (Kf4)} Kd6 {+0.41/15 0s (Kd8)} 151. Kc3
{+0.56/20 0s} Kd7 {+0.41/7 0s} 152. Kd2 {+0.56/8 0s} Kc6
{+0.31/8 0s (Kd6)} 153. Ke2 {+0.62/16 0s (Kc2)} Kd6
{+0.41/16 0s (Kd7)} 154. Kd2 {+0.56/15 0s (Kf3)} Kc6
{+0.41/17 0s} 155. Ke2 {+0.56/7 0s} Kd6 {+0.41/13 0s}
156. Kf3 {+0.61/13 0s} Ke7 {+0.41/13 0s} 157. Kg4 {+0.61/7
0s (Kg3)} Kf7 {+0.41/11 0s (Kf8)} 158. Kg3 {+0.62/13 0s
(Kf4)} Ke7 {+0.41/3 0s (Kf8)} 159. Kf3 {+0.62/13 0s} Ke8
{+0.41/9 0s (Kd6)} 160. Ke2 {+0.62/8 0s (Kf2)} Kd8 {+0.41/5
0s (Kd7)} 161. Kd2 {+0.62/10 0s (Kf2)} Kc8 {+0.41/12 0s
(Kd7)} 162. Ke1 {+0.62/6 0s (Kc3)} Kd7 {+0.29/12 0s}
163. Kf1 {+0.45/11 0s (Kd1)} Ke7 {+0.23/10 0s} 164. Kf2
{+0.45/5 0s} Ke8 {+0.32/10 0s (Kd6)} 165. Kf1 {+0.45/6 0s
(Ke1)} Kd7 {+0.32/6 0s (Ke7)} 166. Kf2 {+0.45/1 0s} Ke8
{+0.32/3 0s (Kd6)} 167. Kg3 {+0.45/1 0s (Ke1)} Ke7 {+0.15/9
0s (Kf8)} 168. Kh4 {+0.45/9 0s (Kg2)} Kf8 {+0.11/9 0s}
169. Kh3 {+0.62/11 0s} Ke8 {+0.15/12 0s (Kg7)} 170. Kh4
{+0.62/8 0s (Kg2)} Kf8 {+0.08/12 0s} 171. Kh3 {+0.62/3 0s}
Ke8 {+0.08/10 0s (Kg7)} 172. Kg2 {+0.34/1 0s} Kd8 {+0.29/11
0s (Kf7)} 173. Kf1 {+0.30/1 0s (Kg1)} Ke7 {+0.29/1 0s}
174. Kg1 {+0.62/6 0s (Ke1)} Kd7 {+0.41/13 0s (Kf8)}
175. Kg2 {+0.17/11 0s} Kd8 {+0.41/3 0s} 176. Kh2 {+0.17/1
0s} Ke8 {+0.41/5 0s (Ke7)} 177. Kh3 {+0.45/10 0s (Kh1)} Ke7
{+0.41/9 0s} 178. Kg3 {+0.35/10 0s} Kf7 {+0.41/14 0s (Kd6)}
179. Kg4 {+0.62/5 0s (Kg2)} Kf8 {0.00/8 0s} 180. Kh4
{+0.35/7 0s (Kh5)} Kf7 {0.00/11 0s (Kg8)} 181. Kg4
{+0.17/10 0s (Kg3)} Kf8 {0.00/12 0s} 182. Kf4 {+0.08/10 0s
(Kh5)} Kf7 {0.00/5 0s (Ke7)} 183. Ke3 {+0.39/9 0s (Kg4)}
Ke7 {+0.08/10 0s} 184. Kd2 {+0.26/7 0s} Kd6 {+0.08/10 0s}
185. Ke2 {+0.26/6 0s (Kc3)} Ke7 {+0.41/3 0s (Kc6)} 186. Kd3
{+0.08/9 0s (Kf1)} Kd6 {0.00/13 0s (Kd7)} 187. Kd4 {0.00/17
0s} 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

Stockfish Master - Kaissa_004 4.5 - 5.5 (10: +0, =9, -1) 45% TP = -34 Elo

[cdani]

Have a hunch that some of those failed Patches work on Houdini.
Houdart may have used those to strengthen Houdini 6 remarkably.
That is why in Ingo Bauer's Test, Houdini is crushing Stockfish.
This is indeed the PERFECT way to beat Stockfish. Take the ideas (failed and successful) from the Open Stockfish Framework, improve upon them and adapt them to work on one's Private/Commercial Engine !
Of course, it would take an extremely talented Chess Programmer to do it, which condition Robert Houdart meets easily.

It always amazes me that even at a computer chess forum people have such simple ideas about engine development.
In the 50-60 Elo improvement of Houdini 6 there is literally nothing that comes from "failed" or even "successful patches" of Stockfish (and it's not for a lack of trying).
There are a lot of high-level similarities between today's top engines, but the low-level differences are such that it's very unlikely that a parameter tweak that works for one engine will also work for another engine (provided that the parameter even makes sense for the other engine).
And it's not as if there have been groundbreaking ideas in the SF code this year, it's been mainly tinkering around the edges. Just like Houdini, to be honest, but the edges and the tinkering are different .

+1
Again since Andscacs 0.91, almost none of the Stockfish changes where compatible with Andscacs, and when it was, almost none of them worked. It's always like that.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Have a hunch that some of those failed Patches work on Houdini.
Houdart may have used those to strengthen Houdini 6 remarkably.
That is why in Ingo Bauer's Test, Houdini is crushing Stockfish.
This is indeed the PERFECT way to beat Stockfish. Take the ideas (failed and successful) from the Open Stockfish Framework, improve upon them and adapt them to work on one's Private/Commercial Engine !
Of course, it would take an extremely talented Chess Programmer to do it, which condition Robert Houdart meets easily.

It always amazes me that even at a computer chess forum people have such simple ideas about engine development.
In the 50-60 Elo improvement of Houdini 6 there is literally nothing that comes from "failed" or even "successful patches" of Stockfish (and it's not for a lack of trying).
There are a lot of high-level similarities between today's top engines, but the low-level differences are such that it's very unlikely that a parameter tweak that works for one engine will also work for another engine (provided that the parameter even makes sense for the other engine).
And it's not as if there have been groundbreaking ideas in the SF code this year, it's been mainly tinkering around the edges. Just like Houdini, to be honest, but the edges and the tinkering are different .

+1
Again since Andscacs 0.91, almost none of the Stockfish changes where compatible with Andscacs, and when it was, almost none of them worked. It's always like that.

Single/small teams of engine programmers know their code very well; in spite of their great number, almost none of current SF developers(with probably a few exceptions) knows what they are doing.

They just try this and that, but the code overview is lacking.

Besides, SF has already gone so far in specifications/frequently unreasonable specifications that still somehow work when tuned to each other, that Daniel might be right that SF development might be at a crucial time, when with current code base could not be achieved a lot.

Actually, we might have SF 9 and + 50 elo to SF 8 only in another full year, so by early fall 2018.

Also, interest from SF developers seems to be low in general.

Sometimes, an idea is more important than the specific implementation.
It might make you think in one or another direction, so it is not necessary to copy SF code one to one. It is true though that reasonable SF ideas this year have not been plentiful.

[Tony P.]

Breaking news: in today's update of the CCRL 40/40 rating list, SugaR XPrO 1.2 64-bit 4CPU has got a 3413 rating based on 292 games and is now considered the best version of SF at 40/40 (not at 40/4 yet), erasing SF itself out of the 40/40 index and pure leaderboard (that list only 1 version per engine). SF 8 remains rated 3388 at 40/40, 25 points behind.

The LOS of SugaR 1.2 over SF 8 at 40/40 has become 91.5%.

Is this pure luck that will fade when SugaR's playing volume gets big enough, or is there some real improvement in SugaR?

[JJJ]

Breaking news: in today's update of the CCRL 40/40 rating list, SugaR XPrO 1.2 64-bit 4CPU has got a 3413 rating based on 292 games and is now considered the best version of SF at 40/40 (not at 40/4 yet), erasing SF itself out of the 40/40 index and pure leaderboard (that list only 1 version per engine). SF 8 remains rated 3388 at 40/40, 25 points behind.

The LOS of SugaR 1.2 over SF 8 at 40/40 has become 91.5%.

Is this pure luck that will fade when SugaR's playing volume gets big enough, or is there some real improvement in SugaR?

Sugar is Stockfish dev clone. So this is more the rating of Stockfish dev than something else.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Do you think the way Stockfish is tested does not work anymore ?

It looks like the person who developed and runs Fishtest has been MIA for 2 months.

[Damir]

hmmm I had no idea person who is responsible and running fishtest is a soldier...

[whereagles]

hmmm I had no idea person who is responsible and running fishtest is a soldier...

it's all part of the Grand Plan

[Tony P.]

Sugar is Stockfish dev clone. So this is more the rating of Stockfish dev than something else.

Oh, it's great to hear that SF's dev is noticeably better than the stable version

What's bugging me is that the SF brand is erased from the leaderboard. It's a minor annoyance for the authors as SF is non-commercial, but some visitors of the CCRL site may get confused and wonder why SF has disappeared from the 40/40 index.

One way to battle this is to submit SF's dev versions for CCRL testing, not just stable ones, so that SugaR fail the similarity tests.

[syzygy]

Sugar is Stockfish dev clone. So this is more the rating of Stockfish dev than something else.

Oh, it's great to hear that SF's dev is noticeably better than the stable version

What's bugging me is that the SF brand is erased from the leaderboard. It's a minor annoyance for the authors as SF is non-commercial, but some visitors of the CCRL site may get confused and wonder why SF has disappeared from the 40/40 index.

One way to battle this is to submit SF's dev versions for CCRL testing, not just stable ones, so that SugaR fail the similarity tests.

Similarity tests? If the CCRL cares about clones, why do they accept Sugar? There is no question that SugaR is a close fork of SF. A fully legal one btw, since the source is available and the license was not changed: https://github.com/Zerbinati/SugaR