Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:30:24 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 02:51:32, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >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 All I have concluded is that it is very unlikely that it is a clone of "crafty". I can't test any other hypothesis...
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.