Roman Hartmann wrote:Rolf, I try to make it simple as you're not familiar with the technical aspects of chess programming itself.
I'm planning to participate at the Berlin marathon this year. Unfortunately I don't have much time for training, so I think I will take the metro for the first part and run the last mile only. Running the last mile in a marathon is very hard as you can imagine and that's why I only run that last mile. Did I already mention that this last mile is very hard in a marathon?
I mean, let's face it, it's boring to run 40 Kilometers before you can actually start that last and important part of the race. Everybody can run 40 kilometers, but it's the last mile which actually counts. So running the last mile is actually the key part of it.
Roman
You forgot to mention how stupid the other people are for running these first 40 km.
And the others keep complaining. They are just jalous on how fast you run this marathon and they only wished they could run it so good as well.
Tony
No, he did not forget. Simply, there are Full ruuners and Last mile runners. I like both of them. Because the point is Pleasure:
if you like to runn 42 km, you do it,
if you like to runn only one or two final ones, no problem.
It ´s you who choses your own pleasure!
Last edited by slobo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
Ryan Benitez wrote:I don't know of any other community that frowns on the GPL the way the computer chess community does.
What do you mean ?
When sloppy came out people freaked out and called it a clone. They clearly did not understand that sloppy was not only using the GPL but was doing what it is supposed to do. Sharing ideas to continue the progress is the idea but we have all gotten do high and mighty that we instead judge people for sharing progress and ideas. The biggest thing keeping Rybka the king of the hill is the mindset of a community that rebels against progress.
Jouni wrote:I find situation really confusing. We need overview of all developments
under way. I remember to read 2007, that Thomas Gaksch is stopped to
work with Toga, but that's was happily preliminary info. But who has written Cluster Toga and 3.1.2 SE? Is Fruit under development also?
Are programmers working in co-operation?
Yes good questions, i'm confused too about all the situation.
Anyone care to show me a link from this Toga Checkov release? I mean an official one, the latest and the strongest.
Toga II 1.4 beta5c, is coming!
Fruit 2.3.x is coming!
Rybka 3.0 is coming!
Deep Fritz 11 is coming!
Hiarcs 12 is coming!
Intel Quad QX9770 is coming.
Great Chess days are coming....
I hope Junior, Chess Tiger, Shredder,Glaurung,Crafty, etc too will arise....
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
George Tsavdaris wrote:Anyone care to show me a link from this Toga Checkov release? I mean an official one, the latest and the strongest.
Perhaps not the latest or the strongest, but I just applied these settings (The Chekov settings) to Toga II 3.1.2SE and it's the Toga I've been talking about:
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Thomas Gaksch wrote:Congratulations Ryan,
this redesign was the right step to be sucessfull for the next years. That was really a lot of work for you. but a great decision to do it.
Now in practise Fruit isn´t anymore Fruit 2.1 and in my opinion Fruit is now your own baby. Why didn´t you rename it?
Thomas
Fabian did the rewrite to bitboard.
In Chess64 Fabien did the bitboards, in Fruit I did the bitboards. They have little in common in they way they are used in the 2 programs.
My mistake. I thought Chess_64 *was* the new Fruit.
How does the performance compare for Fruit+BB verses the old Fruit? I guess that you will see a significant speedup for 64 bit OS and about the same for 32 bit.
Ryan Benitez wrote:I don't know of any other community that frowns on the GPL the way the computer chess community does.
What do you mean ?
When sloppy came out people freaked out and called it a clone. They clearly did not understand that sloppy was not only using the GPL but was doing what it is supposed to do. Sharing ideas to continue the progress is the idea but we have all gotten do high and mighty that we instead judge people for sharing progress and ideas. The biggest thing keeping Rybka the king of the hill is the mindset of a community that rebels against progress.
Roman Hartmann wrote:
And the thing about GPL you better don't bring up anymore as I remember very well that some people had to explain you what GPL actually means.
Roman
To be fair most of the computer chess community does not understand the GPL. It is very saddening to me that something with such great intent can be looked down on as something so bad by so many. I don't know of any other community that frowns on the GPL the way the computer chess community does.
That is a very premature view at best and totally wrong at worse.
Nobody has anything against such activities if you do it for your own fun and then give it to your friends who then enjoy the gift.
What is fishy is the following: if you dont just do it for your privat fun by using all your class as a young programmer but if you at first create such stuff and thereafter you appear on the public stage and claim having "created" your own program and you wanted now compete with the top notch programs in the CCT and also WCCC. That stinks. Because you are no natural born programmer with your own program but you are someone who took something else that someone else had created and you just tested and tuned it against these models and you hope that you could then surprise the professional stars and their amateur best friends and so that you are a destroyer in a fair sports community. Someone has to speak it out in the end. Of your motives were kosher you wouldnt act in public with so much noise. There are so many honest programmers out there who behave morally well and do not simply take other code and translate it to build their own top program but they work with their own creations and they are proud also if they have no direct success but their status is sober - just take Muller as an example who created almost minimalistic programs who have by definition no chance to compete with success. But he writes it on his own. Muller could also take Fruit and create something else. That should be the role model behavior in our community. But here now we see people who clearly are not illegal, no way, but whose own creativity is nothing against the honest attempts of the over 300 decent hobby programmers. We cant sacrifice the moral of over 300 people against the egotistic rahe of some very few public seeking individuals who prodly praise one another for their new tunes of well known programs.
All this is my personal opinion no more no less. I hadnt written this if only once, besides of Bob, who does open source for decades, the known few would have ever jutified their behavior and showed with arguments why their activities would make sense. They just did it, hoped that they are then tested and they write about their new successes. But they did never justify their habits with regard of the many hundreds of collegues who are so crazy to works night and day on their own creations!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Roman Hartmann wrote:
And the thing about GPL you better don't bring up anymore as I remember very well that some people had to explain you what GPL actually means.
Roman
To be fair most of the computer chess community does not understand the GPL. It is very saddening to me that something with such great intent can be looked down on as something so bad by so many. I don't know of any other community that frowns on the GPL the way the computer chess community does.
That is a very premature view at best and totally wrong at worse.
Nobody has anything against such activities if you do it for your own fun and then give it to your friends who then enjoy the gift.
What is fishy is the following: if you dont just do it for your privat fun by using all your class as a young programmer but if you at first create such stuff and thereafter you appear on the public stage and claim having "created" your own program and you wanted now compete with the top notch programs in the CCT and also WCCC. That stinks. Because you are no natural born programmer with your own program but you are someone who took something else that someone else had created and you just tested and tuned it against these models and you hope that you could then surprise the professional stars and their amateur best friends and so that you are a destroyer in a fair sports community. Someone has to speak it out in the end. Of your motives were kosher you wouldnt act in public with so much noise. There are so many honest programmers out there who behave morally well and do not simply take other code and translate it to build their own top program but they work with their own creations and they are proud also if they have no direct success but their status is sober - just take Muller as an example who created almost minimalistic programs who have by definition no chance to compete with success. But he writes it on his own. Muller could also take Fruit and create something else. That should be the role model behavior in our community. But here now we see people who clearly are not illegal, no way, but whose own creativity is nothing against the honest attempts of the over 300 decent hobby programmers. We cant sacrifice the moral of over 300 people against the egotistic rahe of some very few public seeking individuals who prodly praise one another for their new tunes of well known programs.
All this is my personal opinion no more no less. I hadnt written this if only once, besides of Bob, who does open source for decades, the known few would have ever jutified their behavior and showed with arguments why their activities would make sense. They just did it, hoped that they are then tested and they write about their new successes. But they did never justify their habits with regard of the many hundreds of collegues who are so crazy to works night and day on their own creations!
It seems there is some sort of entitlement system here that people need praise or credit. If this is the case then people should not be given praise or credit for crating a GPL engine they should be given praise and credit for contributing to the GPL itself. The amount of credit would be proportionate to the amount of contribution. This said the GPL may not be compatible with competitive chess tournaments because the GPL is all one project. Two GPL engines with 2 or more contributors may have no code in common but they do have equal rights to the code in the engines as they are both part of the GPL project. If the engine has only 1 GPL contributor I see no problem pulling back the GPL status for the given event. Beyond that things get far too confusing and I am happy that I am not the one who makes the rules in tournaments.
Ryan Benitez wrote:It seems there is some sort of entitlement system here that people need praise or credit. If this is the case then people should not be given praise or credit for crating a GPL engine they should be given praise and credit for contributing to the GPL itself. The amount of credit would be proportionate to the amount of contribution. This said the GPL may not be compatible with competitive chess tournaments because the GPL is all one project. Two GPL engines with 2 or more contributors may have no code in common but they do have equal rights to the code in the engines as they are both part of the GPL project. If the engine has only 1 GPL contributor I see no problem pulling back the GPL status for the given event. Beyond that things get far too confusing and I am happy that I am not the one who makes the rules in tournaments.
I see no problems with GPL. But progress, such research and tornaments, Ryan, have nothing to do with one another. You can do your research as much as you want, but you have nothing to do with general tournaments where original programmers show their progs. You dont have your own program but a (possibly and hopefully legal) tunes and experiences new version of a known program of someone else. The same applies to Toga or Strelka. You have just a forbidden strength so to speak. That problem should have been decided long before but until now such versions never have been so strong. Simple as that. Now you must decide for yourself. Are you feeling humuliated, then you have a personal edge in the practice other than sober almost scientific research. But if you are interested in progress then cant feel insulted by my arguments.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
