Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:58:16 09/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2002 at 08:33:37, pavel wrote: >On September 20, 2002 at 07:51:16, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On September 20, 2002 at 07:34:02, pavel wrote: >> >>>The point is that it is possible to not post in winboard forum and other forum >>>but come up with a strong engine. >> >>Correct. >> >>>I don't see programmer of Fritz brag about his program and perticipate in any >>>forum. >>>Why is it not possible for someone else? >>>Does his silence means that there is something fishy about his program? >> >>No, it doesn't by default. There are plenty of examples to invalidate that >>theory. The interesting bit is the actual development time. You can make an >>argument about how long it'll take to develop an engine of a certain strength. >>But even that becomes subjective rather quickly (ie. pure guesswork) as you >>can't exclude the likelihood of immense talent, nor avoid the fact that sources >>are available in abundance nowadays, be it papers or source code. The discussion >>is, or becomes, rather tedious without an actual executable to confirm or >>support various allogations. That isn't foolproof either. >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > > >I agree. >The only way to know if it is a clone (which I highly doubt) or not, is by >having access to the executable. >Without that, we can make guesses, and try to prove each other with past similar >scenarios, but we cannot come into conclutions. > >Here are possible reasons why I think it is not a clone: > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?252851 > >cheers, >pavs Nobody claims that there is a proof that it is a clone but I clearly do not like the author's decision not to play with it in tournaments before having a very strong engine and hiding everything. Uri
This page took 0.1 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.