Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 13:40:08 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 16:36:29, Uri Blass wrote: >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. In principle, I agree with you. Any of these statements alone would not suffice. But considering all of these, then what are the similarities ? I see none. What was the complaint against List then based upon ? I see no other base than envy. Uli > >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.