Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:29:29 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 07:59:24, pavel wrote: >On September 25, 2002 at 22:16:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>> >>>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..." > >Hmmm, First Yace than Ruffian (I am sure I missed few more). >So that makes twice, right? ;) > Le Petite. Voyager. Bionic Impact. Gunda. Several others. All based on Crafty. More than twice. And I wasn't the person that suspected "yace". If you check back. Others claimed to have seen early source versions. I don't spend much time looking at source from others. Heck, I don't spend _any_ time looking at others' source. But there have been _several_ clones of Crafty. Not to mention other programs. > >> >>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... >> > >:) >Bob, I have great respect for you, I hope you don't take offense on some of my >posts; none was intended, I just didn't agree with you. That isn't a problem. Note that I don't have any strong feelings about this issue at the moment. All I can say, from looking, is that Ruffian doesn't appear to be related to Crafty, based on lots of things. Whether it is based on another program, had help from a commercial programmer, or is brand new is unknown to me and I'm not losing any sleep whatsoever waiting on it to be resolved... > >So talking about getting realistic, how about some solid data to support those >speculations, now that the program is available for everyone to try? All I can say, at the moment, is that it is pretty clearly not Crafty. Or at least not a crafty without a _lot_ of changes. Looking at output that has been posted, is bears a resemblence to Shredder more than any other program, based on search depth, search failures, etc... Whether SMK has a hand in this or not, I have absolutely no idea. Whether the program _actually_ resembles Shredder in the search internals I don't know. I just noticed a few posts that had output from various programs compared to Ruffian and (to me) it appeared that Shredder was the "closest" one to it. What that means is anybody's guess. Probably nothing. Since I don't run windows here, and since I don't own any commercial engines whatsoever, I can't (and wouldn't if I could) try to compare Ruffian to anything. It isn't a copy of my code, which is all I really care about from an ICCA/ICGA point of view. > >cheers, >pavs
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.