Uri Blass wrote:
{snip}
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
{snip}
Uri
I think it is possible to do a "lazy rewrite" where you change only a single interface. It would be far easier to do with a C++ program that makes extensive use of classes (Fruit does not).
However, that has clearly not taken place. The code of Strelka is not like Fruit (though there are some similarities, such as the pawn information strcuture).
To me, a clone program is a kind of cheating where you take someone else's code and then make a few modifications and claim that it is your own. Another kind of clone is where you cut and paste code from someone else into your program with almost no modification (usually, programs are not similar enough to do this, but it happens sometimes.) Stelka is not like either of those cases. There is completely nothing wrong with reading someone else's code and taking their *ideas*. In fact, that is a major purpose of open source code. It is not illegal. It is not immoral. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
Sergei Markoff wrote:I'll speak with Yury to got the permission.
Looks like Yury registered account in this forum, may be he will ask you himself.
Yes Sergei.....if I see that table.....just that.
To be specific I'd like the table that was in Strelka 1.0 not the one in Strelka 1.8 uci.
Christopher
Note that I got only 1.8 and not 1.0
1.8 also has a big table of 2^14 numbers that is 2048 lines because every line has only 2^3 numbers(every number is 64 bit number) and I thought that you meant to that table.
Uri
You could help with 1.8 and that table then. 1.0 is the better choice although.
The table I speak of are the weights. I care not if they are 64 bit numbers or base 10.
I have a calculator you see....
Christopher
I hope I'm wrong, but the longer you have to wait, the more suspicious I become.
Am I right in thinking that if Strelka 1.0 is proven to be a clone, then Strelka 1.8 will be tarred as well, or should they be treated separately?
Regards, Graham.
If it is a clone someone sure scewed up. It is not as strong as
Fruit or Toga.
Alessandro Scotti wrote:I'm not saying you don't have a point Chris, I'm saying that evidence seems to show that:
a) Strelka is not a clone;
b) it contains data that has been reverse enginereed from Rybka.
I take the testimonials of many people for point a), and Strelka author's own words for b).
I'm really not sure why you want to discuss the above over and over again, IMO it would be more interesting to take a) and b) for granted and proceeding from there, especially if there is something new that can be added to the lot that has already been said so far.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
You may claim that it has some parts of fruit and it is illegal to release it without the source but even in that case it is not a clone because I consider clone to be something that is the same or almost the same and I think that translating non bitboard program to bitboard is more than 50% change.
Uri
The thing that worries me the most is that the judge and jury here are *clearly* people with axes to grind. The chances that their evaluation will be impartial is zero.
The clone fever madness has gone way over the edge. I actually think that it is just as criminal to accuse without proof as it is to perform the crime in the first place. Chess programming has become host to a hostile field of witch hunters who assume guilt based upon the flimsiest bits of evidence.
On the one hand, I do not want to see people stealing other people's work and taking the credit for it. On the other hand, I do not want chess programmers to face outrageous attacks based upon the phase of the moon.
Sorry Dan, you lost me here.
We are talking about the guy who took Fruit, reverse engineerd the Rybka table in it and then very proudly announce he did this, aren't we ? ( And accused Vas of doing the same )
But now, he has written a new engine and all is well, because this one isn't a clone ?
He has mislead people before ( you were one of them) Ever wondered how he did it ? Ever wondered if he's doing it again ?
But I am the bad guy here. Why, because I don't fall for the same crap twice ?
Tony
I don't think he knows what clone means if he claims that he cloned someone else's code. Strelka is very different from Fruit.
Uri Blass wrote:I got source of this program and was asked to write a message about this program
So was I. I have only studied it for about an hour so far, but I can already say that Strelka 1.8 is definitely not a clone of any chess engine I know. The influence from Fruit is evident, but the similarities are nowhere near big enough to make Strelka deserve the clone label. In fact, I have seen the source code of other closed-source chess engines (which nobody has ever expressed any suspicions about) with much more striking similarities to Fruit, but even these engines cannot be described as clones.
I cannot comment about similarities to Rybka, which I know almost nothing about.
Based on what I know, Strelka looks like a perfectly legitimate engine, and deserves at least the same level of respect as my own program.
Alessandro Scotti wrote:I'm not saying you don't have a point Chris, I'm saying that evidence seems to show that:
a) Strelka is not a clone;
b) it contains data that has been reverse enginereed from Rybka.
I take the testimonials of many people for point a), and Strelka author's own words for b).
I'm really not sure why you want to discuss the above over and over again, IMO it would be more interesting to take a) and b) for granted and proceeding from there, especially if there is something new that can be added to the lot that has already been said so far.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
You may claim that it has some parts of fruit and it is illegal to release it without the source but even in that case it is not a clone because I consider clone to be something that is the same or almost the same and I think that translating non bitboard program to bitboard is more than 50% change.
Uri
The thing that worries me the most is that the judge and jury here are *clearly* people with axes to grind. The chances that their evaluation will be impartial is zero.
The clone fever madness has gone way over the edge. I actually think that it is just as criminal to accuse without proof as it is to perform the crime in the first place. Chess programming has become host to a hostile field of witch hunters who assume guilt based upon the flimsiest bits of evidence.
On the one hand, I do not want to see people stealing other people's work and taking the credit for it. On the other hand, I do not want chess programmers to face outrageous attacks based upon the phase of the moon.
Sorry Dan, you lost me here.
We are talking about the guy who took Fruit, reverse engineerd the Rybka table in it and then very proudly announce he did this, aren't we ? ( And accused Vas of doing the same )
But now, he has written a new engine and all is well, because this one isn't a clone ?
He has mislead people before ( you were one of them) Ever wondered how he did it ? Ever wondered if he's doing it again ?
But I am the bad guy here. Why, because I don't fall for the same crap twice ?
Tony
Sorry Tony but there is no proof for your words and we do not talk about a new strelka but about the old strelka1.8.
There is no proof that the guy took fruit and there is no proof that he proudly announce he did this.
Someone made these claims in some forum and you automatically assume that the author of the source did it?
There may be only a proof that he took part of rybka and it is clear that he did not mean to make his program stronger but only to make it similiar to rybka beta as much as possible.
Tord Romstad wrote:Based on what I know, Strelka looks like a perfectly legitimate engine, and deserves at least the same level of respect as my own program.
You are one of the few persons I trust about this issue, so I'm gonna consider my stance on Strelka.
Thanks.
Hi Martin,
when many well respected engine authors are expressing their opinion that Strelka is no clone, it makes one wonder what all the fuss is about.
After all, you'd think that they would be the true experts on such matters.
Perhaps our decision to keep testing it for CCRL will be vindicated and we'll stop copping flak for it.
Tord Romstad wrote:Based on what I know, Strelka looks like a perfectly legitimate engine, and deserves at least the same level of respect as my own program.
