IPPOLIT

[kranium]

Using RobboLito 0.1 as the name when you are not the author of RobboLito is intentionally misleading.
So I'm going to support Tarantula.

I think calling it Tarantula is also (even more?) misleading...
many will assume it's a whole new engine
and I know all to well, most (all) don't read included documentation

Tarantula
by Roberto Pescatore
?

calling it RobboLito 0.10, everyone knows immediately what it is and where it comes from...

but anyway, you have a point...
i want to do what's best, and so will reconsider the naming.

[alfons]

The ending "ito" is used to mean a small thing

It is not unlike the "-ka" ending in slavic languages

There's a term for this cunningly observed phenomena: diminutive (pff: tech-people...)!

The problem is GUI as for Linux and chess. Scid and XBoard are great, but when it comes to engine-engine tournament, they are lacking. After pestling Matthias continuously about a Linux port of ChessGUI, he decided to send me the source. I thought by now the project would have been completed, but other activities have taken precedence -- so I don't know if and/or when it will be done.

Exciting news! Will it be a gtk-application?

[kingliveson]

.
.
.
Tarantula
by Roberto Pescatore
?
.
.
.

No, by Kranium, or by Kranium, an IPPOLIT, RobboLito derivative. All that matter is attribution is given somewhere. By the way, derivative is not a dirty word. Many popular Linux Distributions are derivatives; Ubuntu is a Debian derivative, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu (new releases follow a new release of Ubuntu), S.u.S.E. (now openSUSE) initial release was based on Slackware, etc.

Exciting news! Will it be a gtk-application?

I wouldn't get too excited just yet since it currently has an indefinite hold placed on it. ChessGUI is designed with Borland C++Builder VCL/DFM which makes it not portable, the UI at least. My preference of programming language is C, but am also a KDE user so the obvious choice was Qt -- plus, it is more robust.

[Uly]

I think calling it Tarantula is also (even more?) misleading...
many will assume it's a whole new engine.

Not really, just put a read me somewhere that says the origin of the engine. And, anyway, the other derivatives of RobboLito/Ippolit (Fire, IvanHoe, Deep Saros) DID change the name of the engine. The only truly misleading engines were Houdini and Tactico that tried to deny the engine's origins.

This is how it works in the software world (kingliveson gave Linux as an example) but also in the computer chess world, here are two quick examples:

Glaurung: When a new group of programmers started working on it, the name was changed to Stockfish (though, it had the support of the original Glaurung programmer, I don't think Tord chose the new name).

Fruit: Was the fork of Fruit called Fruit 3? No, the name was changed to Toga and later Toga II.

Did Stockfish and Toga mislead anyone? Not really. Would they have misled people if they kept the old names? I for one, would have been confused if Toga was called Fruit 3.0, as I would have thought it was an engine by Fabien Letouzey, or Ryan Benitez, calling it Toga avoided any confusion or misleading.

So I think it's important to change the name.

[kingliveson]

...And, anyway, the other derivatives of RobboLito/Ippolit (Fire, IvanHoe, Deep Saros) DID change the name of the engine...

You missed the 1st and 9th posts on the thread.

[Uly]

Semantics.

[kingliveson]

Semantics.

Is Rybka 4 a derivative of Rybka 3 in this context? No.

[Uly]

in this context?

Exactly, I'd rather use words that don't depend highly on context. In general, all engines are derivatives of their previous versions.

We already have problems with words like "clone", I'd rather avoid to have such problems with a word like "derivative", instead opting to remain consistent of my usage of the word, and not pickup up the definition of someone else.

For me, only Ippolit is Ippolit, the other engines are derivatives of it.

[kingliveson]

in this context?

Exactly, I'd rather use words that don't depend highly on context. In general, all engines are derivatives of their previous versions.

We already have problems with words like "clone", I'd rather avoid to have such problems with a word like "derivative", instead opting to remain consistent of my usage of the word, and not pickup up the definition of someone else.

For me, only Ippolit is Ippolit, the other engines are derivatives of it.

That is incorrect, at least in terms of software development. A derivative is a fork usually produced by another entity.

In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a legal copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software. The term implies not merely a development branch, but a split in the developer community, analogous to a religious schism.

[Uly]

In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a legal copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.

I wouldn't call Houdini 1.0 and RobboLito "distinct pieces of software". See? It's all about semantics, and I doubt you'll have luck making people call all these engines Ippolit (even if it's more correct to call them Ippolit than Ippolit derivatives or something).