Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:06:32 09/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2002 at 17:49:15, pavel wrote: >On September 19, 2002 at 17:37:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 19, 2002 at 14:46:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:20:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 19, 2002 at 11:47:01, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 11:24:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>The only thing that concerns me is that anytime a brand new and unheard-of >>>>>>engine pops up, it is cause for concern _and_ suspicion. It might be perfectly >>>>>>legitimate, who knows. But remember "voyager", "le petite", "bionic impact", >>>>>>"gunda" and others? >>>>>> >>>>>>Jumping way up to near the front of the pack is not easy. Doing it without >>>>>>ever having been to a public event is even more unlikely. >>>>>> >>>>>>It would be interesting to examine the executable if anyone has a copy, to >>>>>>avoid the suspicions before they start to grow... >>>>> >>>>>That suspicion is natural, but if this engine really is that strong, then he >>>>>must have improved a lot on Crafty or whatever code he used. >>>>>There has been many Crafty clones, but no one actually stronger than Crafty >>>>>AFAIK, so Ruffian is really not your average clone in that case. >>>>> >>>> >>>>It depends. IE on any given day, crafty can beat anybody, or be beaten by >>>>anybody. Look at the results for "Le Petite". It looked very strong. Yet >>>>it was an absolute copy... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>But apart from that, have you ever really gone over all the open source programs >>>>>out there, and what about the CCC archives? There is plenty of information >>>>>available to build a mighty strong engine. I don't think it could be done in 6 >>>>>months, but who knows how much time he spent on it, hopefully it was a good >>>>>decade ;) >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>>That's the point. I can't imagine someone working on an engine, in a vacuum, >>>>for a decade, before anyone finds out about it. I can't imagine anyone writing >>>>a program in 6 months that would come close to beating _any_ top program. >>>> >>>>Anything is possible, I will agree. But the probability is so low that it >>>>will make people wonder... >>> >>>I hope you realize that you have essentially *publicly* leveled an accusation >>>without presenting any evidence. I would prefer in such cases that either an >>>investigation be conducted discretely or a wait and see policy be followed. >> >> >>I haven't leveled _any_ accusation whatsoever. I asked a direct question, >>pointing out what has happened in the past. I have _not_ said that this >>program is a "clone" or anything else, and you can feel free to find some- >>thing I wrote that does make that claim... >> >>As I said previously, I find it _hard_ to believe that a newcomer would be >>that strong. _not_ impossible, just _unlikely_. I stand by that... If some- >>one takes that the wrong way, fine by me... > >No offense. >But you had the same impression when YACE came out. Yace first release was clearly wekaer than yace of today. >It is a fact that Yace came out of blue and became as strong as Crafty in a very >short time. >Same can be said about Aristarch, which also improved in a very short time. Aristarch first release was clearly weaker than aristarch of today. Aristarch also played before it was released in one of the CCT tournaments if I remember correctly. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.