Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 19:08:35 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 15:55:58, Thao Tak-Sen wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 15:26:47, Andreas Aicher wrote: > >>http://www.zipproth.com/chess/ >> >>Andreas > > >"List512UCI" is completely different from crafty >why was it said to be clone?i dont believe > >Crafty-1909 WB2 5 MB: > 7 00:00 -0.10 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. e4 e6 14. exf5 exf5 > 8 00:00 -0.10 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. e4 e6 14. exf5 exf5 > 9 00:01 -0.15 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. e4 Be6 14. exd5 Bxd5 15. Ba3 >10 00:07 -0.13 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. g4 Be6 13. g5 Nd7 14. Nxc6 Qxc6 15. Qf3 Nb6 >16. Qf4 >11 00:19 -0.07 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. e4 Nxe5 14. dxe5 Bxe5 15. Bxe5 >Qxe5 16. exd5 h6 17. a3 >12 00:45 -0.09 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. g4 Be6 13. f4 Rcd8 14. f5 gxf5 15. gxf5 Bd7 >16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Qf3 Qd6 > 7 00:00 -4.70 Rd8 a8=Q Rxa8 Rxa8 Kxh4 Rh8+ Kg4 Rh7 Bd6 Kc6 > > > > >List512 UCI 22 MB: > 5 00:00 0.10 Nf3h4 Bf5g4 f2f3 Bg4e6 a2a4 > 6 00:00 0.01 Nf3h4 Bf5g4 f2f3 Bg4e6 Bb2a3 b7b5 > 7 00:00 -0.06 Nf3h4 Bf5g4 Qd1d2 e7e5 d4xe5 Re8xe5 h2h3 Bg4h5 > 7 00:00 0.01 a2a4 Nc6b4 Ra1c1 e7e6 Nf3e5 Nf6d7 Ne5g4 > 8 00:00 -0.02 a2a4 Nc6b4 Ra1c1 Qd8d6 Nf3h4 Bf5g4 f2f3 Bg4d7 > 9 00:01 0.02 a2a4 Nc6b4 Ra1c1 Qd8d6 Nf3h4 Bf5d7 Bb2a3 e7e6 Ba3xb4 >10 00:04 0.03 a2a4 e7e5 Nf3xe5 Nc6xe5 d4xe5 Re8xe5 Qd1d4 Re5e8 Nc3xd5 Nf6h5 >Qd4f4 Nh5xf4 >11 00:09 -0.02 a2a4 e7e5 Nf3xe5 Nc6xe5 d4xe5 Re8xe5 Nc3e2 Re5e8 Ra1c1 c7c6 >c2c4 Bf5e4 Bb2xf6 >11 00:26 0.02 Nc3e2 Qd8d7 Ne2f4 Bf5e4 Nf3e5 Qd7d6 Bg2xe4 Nf6xe4 f2f3 Ne4g5 >Ne5xc6 Qd6xc6 > 7 00:00 -4.70 Rd8 a8=Q Rxa8 Rxa8 Kxh4 Rh8+ Kg4 Rh7 Bd6 Kc6 > > >List 512 is probably the number 1 freeware engine I don't know about #1 - but I would like to still see the "evidence" that it was a clone of any_program. For that matter prove to me that Fritz , Shredder etal do not use any pieces of crafty either. Of course that will not happen, but that is my point. I do have seen anything that convinces me that justice was served here. Conversely, it points to an "injustice" imo. The same with the "3-fold" repetion that was not. Two black eyes in one tournament - I'm guessing things will go a bit better in the event. At least I'm hoping it will. It reminded me of when Fidelity use to have "winning" machines resigned a winning position so the the "desired" machine will get a higher rating. In a similiar argument, the TD ruled that there was noting illegal about that unethical act, noting that there were no rules against it and the operator was within his right to resign for the machine at any time. If you think about it , it's not too far removed from that scenario that actually did happen back in the 80's (which was well documented in CCR). A significant difference of course was that both machines were manufactured by Fidelity and one of their employees was the operator. This was A USCF rated tounament and USCF allowed it to happen. Why? USCF was in bed with Fidelity - making a lot money selling over-rated machines made by Fidelity.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.