Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:15:47 01/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2004 at 14:49:12, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Mogens, Hey Thomas, >Again, it was never claimed as a clone -> the claim was only that it might have >some Crafty in it - which is a) not allowed due to the rules of the ICGA and b) >not allowed to the Crafty license itself (you may take a look in the Crafty >Source Code). And as far as I know they did test some positions in a one ply >search... (Where the search itself does not play such a big role - mainly the >eval decides about the move choosed in a one ply search...) - and the version of >List they did test showed almost always the same score and move... That sounds like some of the worst nonsense I've heard in a long time. The evidence was hearsay and a few one ply searches. In that case it wasn't game related and could have been determined before start, not as an afterthought during the championship. >And about those facts given here in the forum -> for every programmer I did talk >with, those shown facts would have been enough that the Author should be asked >what is going on... Actually, there haven't been any facts so far, only supposition. Would it have been enough evidence to inspect the source code of a commercial program? Not in a million years. >I doubt it... I still think that most programmers are honest people. At the >moment I feel only suspicious about two of the better (better means better then >Gerbil or TSCP) amateur engines... It's not an accusation. But fact remains that very few start a 100% percent from scratch. The endresult - a few versions later - will probably bear very little resemblance to its origins and therefore perfectly legitimate. However, I suspect that quite a few engines contain bits and pieces. Your last comment suggests why rules of semi-judicial reviews should have rigerous rules to prevent sabotage, envy and general incompetence by ICGA and competitors. Not, "We the people have a few questions based on one ply searches. Cough up with your secrets or be banned." >again, the given facts were enough that the ICGA was forced to ask Mr. Reul what >is going on... Nearly every programmer agrees to that. Sure, it's a competitor out of the way. The cynical viewpoint hereby expressed. I have no idea if Fritz Reul is guilty or not. But he had every right to refuse examination of his engine based on the evidence you've given so far. And now some regard the engine with suspicion unfairly, which was my original approach to this thread. Based on the current discussions I don't see any need to feel ashamed about downloading List. I've done it, even if I really hate "UCI-only" engines ;-). Regards, Mogens
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.