Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 23:51:32 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 22:16:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 25, 2002 at 20:34:04, pavel wrote: > >>On September 25, 2002 at 20:08:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On September 25, 2002 at 19:37:49, pavel wrote: >>> >>>>On September 25, 2002 at 19:22:00, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I hope to see a better commercial program than Ruffian with a smaller >>>>>developement time in the future. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>I hope to see that program to get much more respect than what Ruffian got by >>>>some of us. >>>> >>>>cheers, >>>>pavs >>> >>>You know the story of the boy who cried wolf, right. >>> >>>Well, when the word is out that a new super engine has been developed, by a >>>totally unknown and in (almost) no time, then that's just crying wolf to many >>>here. They've seen it, believed it, and been fooled more than once, so one would >>>have to be a bit of an idiot to take the bait over and over. >>> >>>Therefore you should forgive them if they don't exactly jump overboard with >>>excitement right away, they must be _sure_ first. >>> >>>But hey, all this fuzz is only because the engine is so very strong, the >>>programmer shouldn't take it as an insult but rather as a complement! >>> >>>(the guy is unknown they say, so it couldn't very well be personal) >>> >>>I think you may have a point that some are jealous, I know I am! (well maybe >>>envious is more accurate :). >>>But don't we all want to make stronger engines, and do it fast even!? >>>I certainly have no problems admitting that! ;) >>> >>>Though AFAIK, this isn't related to whether or not it is a clone debate. >>> >>>-S. >> >>Sune, >> I still think some of the reactions has more to do with jealousy than >>sketicism. I mean if you look at the speculations (and some accusations) I >>listed in my previous post, and if you think about some of them, you will notice >>how dubiously far-fetched those speculations and accusations are. >> > > > >No jealousy here whatsoever. Just a healthy dose of skepticism, caused by >the old > > "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me..." > >I've seen _way_ too many "new and wonderful" engines... That turned out to >be neither... > > > > >>I would expect someone to take this is as an example, and work harder to improve >>his engine, not stratch their head and try to find faults that isn't there. >> >>IMO the previous clones were much too obvious, and clones are much too easy to >>catch in general. > > >And you don't think it possible that the "cloners" get more sophisticated? >Or do they remain with their very amateurish attempts forever? > >Get realistic... So Bob now that you have had some time to examine the .exe, did you find anything suggesting it was a clone or are you of the beleif that it indeed is an original? Regards Jonas
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.