Critter 1.2 update + new homepage

[mcostalba]

well you've gotten your way...it's been banned from most major lists, cannot enter tournaments, etc.

I don't know about tournaments but I have a clear idea why fire is not so extensively tested on the public lists (with some exceptions like the very nice list of Frank).

The reality, crude and simple, is that Fire is not so much more strong than the engine family to which it belongs. Houdini it is and I guess this is the _only_ reason why, after a lot of troubles, finally it get started to be tested. But Fire is not, it is still well among the big and happy family of the various Ippo, Robbo, Ivanhoe and the likes. If you are able to push it above 50 ELO from its origins then I guess you'll be tested....

[Rein Halbersma]

well you've gotten your way...it's been banned from most major lists, cannot enter tournaments, etc.

I don't know about tournaments but I have a clear idea why fire is not so extensively tested on the public lists (with some exceptions like the very nice list of Frank).

The reality, crude and simple, is that Fire is not so much more strong than the engine family to which it belongs. Houdini it is and I guess this is the _only_ reason why, after a lot of troubles, finally it get started to be tested. But Fire is not, it is still well among the big and happy family of the various Ippo, Robbo, Ivanhoe and the likes. If you are able to push it above 50 ELO from its origins then I guess you'll be tested....

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

[mcostalba]

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

This is fully in the lists owners and manteiners, each of them is different and, as you can see, each of them has his opinions and ideas and behaves consequently.

So I would say the the simple rule is: one engine starts to get tested in a list when the list maintainers chose to do so

....and its a good rule IMHO !

[kranium]

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

This is fully in the lists owners and manteiners, each of them is different and, as you can see, each of them has his opinions and ideas and behaves consequently.

So I would say the the simple rule is: one engine starts to get tested in a list when the list maintainers chose to do so

....and its a good rule IMHO !

funny, i guess I always thought (perhaps rather naively) that the 'rating lists' were there
to provide a public service to casual users by providing information...complete and unbiased information?


unfortunately, it's clear these entrenched 'establishment' lists are pursuing an agenda...
deciding themselves for the masses:

what is 'legitimate' and what is not...
what is a 'clone' and what is not...
which engines are of the same family and which are not...?

and these are non-programmers/amateurs (often w/ little or no expertise) making their best guess!
(or simply abusing their entrenched influence and power?)

For ex:
Rybka is now fairly certainly known to be derived from Fruit!

yet Fruit 2.1, etc. etc. is still on the 'lists'?
(along with Rybka, GambitFruit, Toga, Cyclone. etc.)?

can you (or Don) please explain this discrepency?

[Don]

well you've gotten your way...it's been banned from most major lists, cannot enter tournaments, etc.

I don't know about tournaments but I have a clear idea why fire is not so extensively tested on the public lists (with some exceptions like the very nice list of Frank).

The reality, crude and simple, is that Fire is not so much more strong than the engine family to which it belongs. Houdini it is and I guess this is the _only_ reason why, after a lot of troubles, finally it get started to be tested. But Fire is not, it is still well among the big and happy family of the various Ippo, Robbo, Ivanhoe and the likes. If you are able to push it above 50 ELO from its origins then I guess you'll be tested....

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

If you want to start off with some open source program there is nothing wrong with that, but there should be an understanding that give up a lot for that, such as the right to compete in top chess tournaments. You are representing the family of programs and are subject to limitations. If you want more than that, you should build your own original chess program. Nothing wrong with that either. I don't think this is complicated.

In your hypothetical example, one has to be chosen to represent the latest version of the Glaurung family. Tord should be the original rights holder (so to speak) or he could announce that the project is now in the hands of the new kids on the block.

So I don't see that there is any dilemma here. It's sometimes complicated determining if this was done, but that's life. How often does the umpire call a strike when it's really a ball or visa versa?

Consider how you might feel if you spent 3 or 4 years designing and building something at your job, then just before it was finished you are fired. Someone else takes over the project and claims success and almost complete credit for your work. You did the hard part, they did very little but get the credit and an enormous bonus for a job well done! Doesn't that seem offensive?

Unfortunately, it's possible to "take over" someones else's project (via open source or otherwise chess program) without giving credit where credit is due. And also, unfortunately, the last person to work on the project is quite often the one associated with it. They guys you stepped on to get there are belittled by the process.

[Don]

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

This is fully in the lists owners and manteiners, each of them is different and, as you can see, each of them has his opinions and ideas and behaves consequently.

So I would say the the simple rule is: one engine starts to get tested in a list when the list maintainers chose to do so

....and its a good rule IMHO !

I think so too!

Don

[Don]

This begs the question: giving proper credits and putting reverse engineering issues aside, at which point can a program with another open source program as its starting point, compete in a tournament? E.g. if Tord had considered continuing with Glaurung on his own, would people consider Stockfish an independent program or not? And similar for the next kid on the block taking Stockfish to a whole new level. Is a 50 ELO improvement enough?

This is fully in the lists owners and manteiners, each of them is different and, as you can see, each of them has his opinions and ideas and behaves consequently.

So I would say the the simple rule is: one engine starts to get tested in a list when the list maintainers chose to do so

....and its a good rule IMHO !

funny, i guess I always thought (perhaps rather naively) that the 'rating lists' were there
to provide a public service to casual users by providing information...complete and unbiased information?


unfortunately, it's clear these entrenched 'establishment' lists are pursuing an agenda...
deciding themselves for the masses:

what is 'legitimate' and what is not...
what is a 'clone' and what is not...
which engines are of the same family and which are not...?

and these are non-programmers/amateurs (often w/ little or no expertise) making their best guess?
(or simply abusing their entrenched influence and power?)

For ex:
Rybka is now fairly certainly known to be derived from Fruit!

yet Fruit 2.1, etc. etc. is still on the 'lists'?
(along with Rybka, GambitFruit, Toga, Cyclone. etc.)?

can you (or Don) please explain this discrepency?

I don't have any control over what the rating list people do. They come on this forum and maybe they listen to me and maybe they don't. They have all made decisions I would not have made but I'm not too critical of it since they do this on their own time and their own dime. The surest way to face a lot of criticism is to do a good deed because no good deed goes unpunished.

[BubbaTough]

[quote="kranium"]
funny, i guess I always thought (perhaps rather naively) that the 'rating lists' were there to provide casual users with information...complete and unbiased information?

[\quote]

It seems to me that ratings lists are generated by volunteers, for free, for people to do what they want with. These volunteers do this because they enjoy it (as a hobby) and enjoy sharing it. In the same way, many engines are developed for free because the developer enjoys it (as a hobby) and shared with the public to do what they wish with it (within certain legal guidelines). The usual and appropriate rule in both these cases is: those that do the work make the rules. The rating list contributors should maintain their lists in whatever way is most enjoyable to them. After all, it is there hobby, not a job! What they test and hiw they test it may affect how much attention there list gets, but so be it. The same is true for free engine developers within the confines of the legal system. Some of the development decisions may annoy others, whether it leaving in bugs, leaving out feautes, making the engine to weak, or reusing the code of others, as long as its legal (and the engine developer or rating list contributor is honest) its really up to the person doing the work what they want to do, and up to the public what they want to do with the product.

Taken from this perspective, its hard to see what the fuss is about. The rating list folks can do what they want, and as long as they are not faking results or something (which seems amazingly unlikely) there is nothing to complain about. You can develop your engine as you want, and there is nothng for them to complain about. If for some reason its important to you to have your engine in some rating list, then it is up to you to negotiate the terms with the keepers of that list that woukd make them willing to devote their time and energy to making that happen. If you are not willing to do that, that is your decision.

-Sam

[kranium]

Consider how you might feel if you spent 3 or 4 years designing and building something at your job, then just before it was finished you are fired. Someone else takes over the project and claims success and almost complete credit for your work. You did the hard part, they did very little but get the credit and an enormous bonus for a job well done! Doesn't that seem offensive?

well Don, I can certainly relate to that...

i've been working really hard on the Ippolit source code continuously for 2-3 years now...
all my free time...
i have ported virtually every release beginning w/ Ippolit 0.83 over to windows,
fixed bugs, created stability, added features, improved strength, created RobboLito 0.085g3,
and many more release...etc., etc.
and much code from Sentinel and I has found it's way back to IvanHoe...the # 3 engine in the world!
(if you don't have you head in the sand, like some)

but what do i find recognized as legitimate on the 'rating lists'?
Rybka (based on Fruit)
Houdini - almost certainly beginning w/ (cloned from) RobboLito 0.085g3
Komoda (using ideas from Ippolit/RobbolIto/Igorrit/IvanHoe)
Stockfish (using ideas from Ippolit/RobbolIto/Igorrit/IvanHoe)
etc.
etc.

but Robbolito, IvanHoe, Iggorit, and Fire are banned from tournaments and rating lists, they are illegitimate 'clones'!?

what a farce!

[kranium]

funny, i guess I always thought (perhaps rather naively) that the 'rating lists' were there to provide casual users with information...complete and unbiased information?

[\quote]

It seems to me that ratings lists are generated by volunteers, for free, for people to do what they want with. These volunteers do this because they enjoy it (as a hobby) and enjoy sharing it. In the same way, many engines are developed for free because the developer enjoys it (as a hobby) and shared with the public to do what they wish with it (within certain legal guidelines). The usual and appropriate rule in both these cases is: those that do the work make the rules. The rating list contributors should maintain their lists in whatever way is most enjoyable to them. After all, it is there hobby, not a job! What they test and hiw they test it may affect how much attention there list gets, but so be it. The same is true for free engine developers within the confines of the legal system. Some of the development decisions may annoy others, whether it leaving in bugs, leaving out feautes, making the engine to weak, or reusing the code of others, as long as its legal (and the engine developer or rating list contributor is honest) its really up to the person doing the work what they want to do, and up to the public what they want to do with the product.

Taken from this perspective, its hard to see what the fuss is about. The rating list folks can do what they want, and as long as they are not faking results or something (which seems amazingly unlikely) there is nothing to complain about. You can develop your engine as you want, and there is nothng for them to complain about. If for some reason its important to you to have your engine in some rating list, then it is up to you to negotiate the terms with the keepers of that list that woukd make them willing to devote their time and energy to making that happen. If you are not willing to do that, that is your decision.

-Sam

sorry Sam (and Don),
i disagree completely with the "it's their list and they are volunteers" cop-out.

when you are in a position of power and influence, you have a responsibility to exercise it judiciously...
i.e. fairly and in an unbiased manner