pijl wrote:Unfortunately the use of other peoples source code to get a head-start is something that is hard to fight. From the perspective of the programmer it is unfair, as we see improving chess engines as a competition where we would like to have a fair fight. From the viewpoint of a user: Why should he care where the programmer started from. If he made a significant improvement, they will welcome it, and try to use it to get a higher ranking at playchess. Users are in the majority so they win.
For myself: I do not pay attention to lists where recent versions are not playing. AFAIK CCRL only tests publicly available engines and I will not stop them to use the Baron in their tests, nor will I release engines to make it appear on their list. And sending private versions I only do to a few lucky ones.
So whatever happens in CCRL: I do not really care. I hope they have fun with the Baron and the other engines they are playing with. It is not worth it for me to get a heart-attack over it.
Richard.
Why are you showing such disrespect and ignorance to the CCRL team
And what is your aim to draft from the main topic of the thread and tell us that only few lucky people can get your engine
Keep it private,it's your right and no one can argue it,but the majority of the computer chess freaks will stop to give a damn about your Baron,be sure about that....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Side note: I don't know if anyone noticed but Strelka 1.8 supports multi-pv so it is far more useful for analysis than Rybka 1.0 beta. Fruit 2.1 does not support multi-pv for that matter. For me Strelka is interesting enough to include it in my tests and I'm going to keep it until it is clear that it is illegal. And it is by no means clear now.
pijl wrote: From the viewpoint of a user: Why should he care where the programmer started from. If he made a significant improvement, they will welcome it,
This is certainly NOT my viewpoint as a user... but it's true, there seem to be some who think like that. But I doubt that they are a majority among the users and I don't really understand them. If we consider having something like a computer chess community, we should try to keep at least a minimum of civilised standards. Also, if engines like that would be widely accepted, many programmers will be discouraged (some may care more for rankings etc. than you). And for the user, a flood of similar engines is not favourable compared to having more ambitious and unique engines.
In my opinion Daniel got no right to say what engines we should test. Instead of taking Strelka out of the list I would take his engine off the list. Also, I just deleted homer and wont be playing with it until I feel like it.
Tony Thomas wrote:In my opinion Daniel got no right to say what engines we should test. Instead of taking Strelka out of the list I would take his engine off the list. Also, I just deleted homer and wont be playing with it until I feel like it.
Hi Tony,
a week or two ago I warned Daniel that with such statements and positions,he will earn nothing more than isolation and negative emotions in the computer chess community
The guy has the full right to defend the GPL issue,but it's not nice to give ultimatum to the people when you discuss a particular question with them....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Kirill Kryukov wrote:
Hello Daniel. I am very disappointed by your attitude, by seeing that you think it is acceptable to make such demands.
I can see why Daniel feels annoyed, but when the experts can't agree over whether Strelka is a clone, or whether it's illegal, why should we be expected to make such an assumption?
Under such circumstances, it's also unfair to be accused of a lack of ethics or morals.
If Strelka was proven to be illegal in a court of law, there would be no questions. We'd dump it immediately.
Regards, Graham.
Assuming that we have heard the truth about how Strelka was done.
1) Strelka started off as a rewrite of Fruit into bitboards. Fruit has almost no original ideas in it and the translation to bitboards requires a large change to the data structure. Strelka is therefore not a Fruit clone and not in violation of the GPL.
2) Strelka 1.0 is suspect due to copying of the data tables directly from Rybka. This is a grey legal area, because, in general pure data is not copyrightable. The format of the data may be though. However, Strelka 1.8 solves this by creating functionals that reproduce the same end result that the data was used for. This is a true advancement to computer chess. Strelka 1.8 is not a clone based on point 2.
3) Strelka was given other eval parameters that cause it to evaluate very similar to Rybka. Plus the search output of Strelka is a lot more 'honest'. If tunning of Strelka led to the same evaluations as Rybka then the matter would be decided. Strelka 1.8 would not be a clone or illegal in any sense that matters. However, the person claiming to be the author of Strelka indicated that he did not tune Stelka to be like Rybka, but rather, took the parameters directly from Rybka in order to make Stelka play like Rybka. This last point then does indicate that Strelka has cloned the eval of Rybka. The eval is most of a programs identity. This IMO does make Srelka a Rybka clone.
Hi Michael,
just as a matter of interest, what's your view on Toga?
Regards, Graham.
When Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, he made it legal for anyone to make changes to the Fruit sources and release the changed version under the GPL if all conditions of the GPL have been met. Toga is completely compliant with the GPL and is therefore Legal. In actualality it is later versions of Fruit itself that may be thought of as illegal. Just because Fabien is the author, does that exempt him from following the GPL?
We the public were given a free open source engine so that it may be improved upon to the benifit of everyone wanting a stronger engine. Toga is the fulfilment of that ideal. If Thomas stops improving Toga then I hope that someone else will continue the work!
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
I just want to have some answers in the Strelka case
Best,
Daniel
I think we'd all like some clear indisputable answers regarding Strelka.
I don't have any problems with criticisms or discussions about CCRL.
I think what has got you offside with many was your Strelka or Homer ultimatum.
And I don't think you're a bad person at all.
I respect you as a programmer and I enjoy testing your engine.
I would hope there would be no bad blood if I continued to test it.
Heinz Van Kempen wrote:
Please understand that I will not answer here to anyone due to experiences from the past.
Hello Heinz,
it would be nice to see you posting in CCC because you have a lot of experience and valuable knowledge to add to the computer chess scene.
The past is the past and should be left there.
Hoping you'll reconsider.
I can have one spoon of soup and tell if it is salty or not. I don't have to drink the entire bowl. I think enough spoonfulls of soup have been tried by many and it is obviousl that Strelka is a clone. If you want 100% proof then you would probably have to ask Vasik for a copy of the source code of Rybka and then compare it with Strelka. We all know that ain't gonna happen. I have no qualms about CCRL using Strelka ... but I believe it is unfair for the many engine authors that have slaved for many years to get their engines where they are. To have someone come up with an engine that makes all their work seem worthless is OK if it is done by ethical means. But I am sure Strelka has given a lot of engine authors a bad taste in their mouths because it was done by copying and disassembling an existing engine. CCRL testing of Strelka gives the added cover for Osipov that what he did is OK ... something I would prefer not to see ... or at least maybe CCRL should have a seperate list of Clones.
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
I just want to have some answers in the Strelka case
Best,
Daniel
I think we'd all like some clear indisputable answers regarding Strelka.
I don't have any problems with criticisms or discussions about CCRL.
I think what has got you offside with many was your Strelka or Homer ultimatum.
And I don't think you're a bad person at all.
I respect you as a programmer and I enjoy testing your engine.
I would hope there would be no bad blood if I continued to test it.
Regards, Graham.
Hi Graham,
i think the same about you
Homer can be tested anyway and i still hope your internal CCRL group talk is not off yet and maybe some viewpoints will be changing now.
I tryed my best anyway and i'll don't resign fast.
