Deep Saros 2.3c5 Free UCI Engine is out

[kranium]

Hi Norman,

such things could be standard in the next years. Make the list of engines longer and the users will give it more attention.

What's about with Fire?
Do you working on an own engine now or is Fire your actual topic but you make so far a break?

I am sure it could be interesting if you create a new engine with the knowledge in chess programming you have.

Best
Frank

What do you mean by a 'new' engine?

Derivatives are ridiculed and frowned upon
Any new 'good' program must be a 'clone' of something else...and all are accused.

The corrupt 'good old boys' / 'programmer and testing establishment' (Talkchess/CCRL, etc.) has championed this lofty Academic 'ideal':
(largely under the influence of Bob Hyatt)
in order to be a legitimate, the engine must be written 100% from scratch...flowing off the programmers fingertips like a Hemmingway novel.
(imagine having to create a 'new' bubble-sort routine just because your code had to be literally 100% original!)
Ridiculous! In an Academic environment, certainly possible and desirable to require such, but silly in the real world... where programmers re-use code/algorithms, functions, etc. constantly...
Programmers rarely, (if ever) start from scratch...

Unfortunately, this misguided '100% from scratch' notion/requirement severely reduces the playing field, (but does succeed in bolstering the status of and attention for already accepted programs...many of which have never released their source code, are very likely 'dirty', and have been for years).

Of course, years ago, testing groups, amateur testers, and other know nothings, took up the gauntlet of clone hunting and identification...what a disaster! What damage to the chess programming community!

No wonder these individuals and groups are fighting in support of Rybka, tooth and nail to the bitter end...
they screwed up bigtime, and should be shut down.

It looks as if there are only 2 or 3 truly 'clean' programs:
Fruit and Glaurung (these are very similar...Fabien and Tord shared many ideas) and Crafty!

Norm

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Norman,

you wrote about different topics, most I think are true but nobody will hear or better will read it. Each of us have own truths, build in all the years computer chess with 10-20% right interpretation or better build with many missed information.

Shortly to Fabien and Tord:
I switched around 50 mails with Fabien in the latest months. Interview with Glaurung team is quit clear too for me.

After all:
Both are great programmers, perhaps Fabien and Tord discuss about new / old ideas but the main basic approach from both programmers is totally different (think so with 10% programming knowledge I have).

Both have different parts in chess programming with strengths. It make sense that Tord build a team and I am sure it make sense if Fabien build an own team too. For months (in the time I created the interview with the Stockfish team) I am thinking ... could be a great idea if Tord and Fabien create together a new engine (one of the interview questions at this time). With more information today I am thinking ... could be a problem, not easy.

But, its great to see that different of the best programmers we have, have good contacts together and build a friendship. I like it if programmers switched ideas. I don't like it if new engines are available, changed on two-three parameter sources. I don't like it if programmers used the most of good known sources, add perhaps 3-4 own ideas and tell us that all is created in own work.

Example:
Please remember on the time Ruffian come out. Number two in the world, only Shredder are around 30 ELO stronger. Today many new engines have in the first version or after a short time the same level Ruffian have. Whats wrong?

And Bob Hyatt:
I am a fan of Bob Hyatt and make not a secret out of it. I like his way to explain computer chess topics. Possible that he have to different topics other opinions at many others here. But I like that he try to explain it. You can asked him and he will give a good answer.

Hope you understand my "Frankish".

I understand what you wrote but if you create a new engine from scratch many other new ideas will be come and this is the reason that is more interesting to do that.

Best
Frank

[kranium]

Hi Norman,

And Bob Hyatt:
I am a fan of Bob Hyatt and make not a secret out of it. I like his way to explain computer chess topics. Possible that he have to different topics other opinions at many others here. But I like that he try to explain it. You can asked him and he will give a good answer.

Best
Frank

We're all fortunate to have Bob here...

My point was that he has worked on computer chess for more than 30 years in a strict 'Academic' environment,
and it's predominantly his influence has made Talkchess what it is today...

unfortunately this academic ideal has been taken up by Talkchess extremists (w/ the inevitable and consequent abuse of power and undue influence).

[Roger Brown]

We're all fortunate to have Bob here...

My point was that he has worked on computer chess for more than 30 years in a strict 'Academic' environment,
and it's predominantly his influence has made Talkchess what it is today...

unfortunately this academic ideal has been taken up by Talkchess extremists (w/ the inevitable and consequent abuse of power and undue influence).

Hello Norman,

I am seeking a little clarity here.

Dr. Hyatt - as a moderator and member here - has encouraged discussion about clones etc. and indeed, has asked questions of established engines.

What consequent (consequent on what) abuse of power and undue influence do you refer to exactly?

How do these behaviours manifest themselves?

Later.

[kranium]

I don't like it if programmers used the most of good known sources, add perhaps 3-4 own ideas and tell us that all is created in own work.

I agree, that's why I created my original post about Deep Saros...
which is 99.99% identical to IvanHoe 52...

Rest assured that any derivative program I have worked on had substantial/sometimes enormous changes, much new code, new features, bugs fixed, etc...
1000's of hours of work...(for the love of chess and programming).

for ex: simply compare Cyclone xTreme to Toga, or Fire 1.1 to Robbo/IppoLit.

Yet, many closed-minded members here still call them 'clones'.
What is the reward?

Answer- criticism and ridicule
(and from those standing on the sidelines using the programs and offering nothing to the chess community)

[Christopher Conkie]

Let me end this turmoil for both of you......

It goes like this......

http://www.giocareascacchi.it/utility/f ... os.html/4/

But it also goes like this......

http://www.open-aurec.com/wbforum/viewt ... 8&start=20

Let's call it a "draw" between you both....ok?
This is a computer chess forum.....and that is what makes it "pretty".

It is enough already.

Chris

Butt out Conkers...and mind your own business.

Please seek attention elsewhere.

I don't think I will Mr "Normal Shit".....or may I call you "Krapium"

[kranium]

We're all fortunate to have Bob here...

My point was that he has worked on computer chess for more than 30 years in a strict 'Academic' environment,
and it's predominantly his influence has made Talkchess what it is today...

unfortunately this academic ideal has been taken up by Talkchess extremists (w/ the inevitable and consequent abuse of power and undue influence).

Hello Norman,

I am seeking a little clarity here.

Dr. Hyatt - as a moderator and member here - has encouraged discussion about clones etc. and indeed, has asked questions of established engines.

What consequent (consequent on what) abuse of power and undue influence do you refer to exactly?

How do these behaviours manifest themselves?

Later.

No abuse and undue influence by Bob...as I said we are all lucky to have him here.
When C. Theron, Zach, Bob and myself started the discussion 3 years ago about the Rybka-Fruit connection,
Bob faced the same ridicule and accusations as the rest of us...

He never struck back however, and maintained a dignified and respectful personage through it all.
(many would have simply quit...)

The main abuse I'm referring to is by the Amateur testing groups who have stubbornly promoted and defended Rybka all these years,
while simultaneously turning a blind eye to compelling evidence presented by knowledgeable members.

I'm talking about the CCRL especially, who have fought the allegations against Rybka tooth and nail,
fabricating one lame excuse after another.

All the while they were accusing us (who were simply suspicious of Rybka and trying to maintain a dialog)....
of running a smear campaign, or simply being jealous of Rybka success.

Take a look at any CCRL members post here...unbelievably, they are still at it!

[kranium]

I don't think I will Mr "Normal Shit".....or may I call you "Krapium"

very intelligent Chris...
nothing of substance, just childish insults.

You're intending to sabotage this thread, and turn it into a flame war?
...as you did with any threads you disagreed with 3 years ago during the Rybka/Fruit debate, in your position as Talkchess 'henchman'?

that's pitiful...

[Christopher Conkie]

I don't think I will Mr "Normal Shit".....or may I call you "Krapium"

very intelligent Chris...
nothing of substance, just childish insults.

You're intending to sabotage this thread, and turn it into a flame war?
...as you did with any threads you disagreed with 3 years ago during the Rybka/Fruit debate, in your position as Talkchess 'henchman'?

that's pitiful...

Not just intelligent......inventive. More inventive in fact than your dimwitted attempt at the insult of "Conkers" (which you conveniently forgot to quote you dummy).

You accusing anyone of any wrongdoing is like the pot calling the kettle black. You cant be that clever to come in here and pontificate of the subject of cloning. You must like getting slapped about the place. I believe I can hear the ocean.......

[kranium]

I don't think I will Mr "Normal Shit".....or may I call you "Krapium"

very intelligent Chris...
nothing of substance, just childish insults.

You're intending to sabotage this thread, and turn it into a flame war?
...as you did with any threads you disagreed with 3 years ago during the Rybka/Fruit debate, in your position as Talkchess 'henchman'?

that's pitiful...

Not just intelligent......inventive. More inventive in fact than your dimwitted attempt at the insult of "Conkers" (which you conveniently forgot to quote you dummy).

You accusing anyone of any wrongdoing is like the pot calling the kettle black. You cant be that clever to come in here and pontificate of the subject of cloning. You must like getting slapped about the place. I believe I can hear the ocean.......

If you can hear the ocean, it's because you're using a 'Conch shell' for a brain.
(there I 'quoted' it....hope you are pleased...)

ok, if you insist let's play the name game
(although you can probably find a more willing partner at your local kindergarden, I will play along in attempt to please you..)

I thought Conkers was quite humorous...?
maybe 'Bonkers' was better, certainly more apt...

What thread are you reading?

Nowhere I been pontificating on the subject of clones.?
My post simply pointed out the inaccuracy of Roberto's acknowledgement...
maybe you should come back when you are sober, and can make sense.

BTW-
How is you engine Azraël (that nobody can ever see) coming along. Is it for real, or just a drug-induced fantasy?
Can I have copy?
Why not?
Why would somebody keep an engine private...?
Strange?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I think not...
it's highly doubtful that the tree ever existed.