Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:36:29 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 15:57:05, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 15:17:51, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1330 > >Sorry, I think that's nonsense. >How can a clone be considerably faster in nps than its "original" ? No problem Instead of printing number of nodes you multiply it by a constant. >Eval and depth are much different too. No proof. If you add pruning and change the evaluation when 90% of the code is the same then it is possible to do it. > >Anybody who watches a match between these 2, must immediately realize that the >differences are big. > >Furthermore, we know the preliminary version of List. > >Last not least, List is stronger than Crafty. > >I suspect, it's a shame what had been done to Fritz Reul, the author of List. > >Uli I do not claim that List is a crafty clone but being stronger than Crafty is also no proof. The main reason that I did not suspect that it is a clone is Dann's message. Uri
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.