Author: Jim Bodkins
Date: 14:12:11 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2003 at 15:22:15, Andrew Williams wrote: >On November 29, 2003 at 12:59:01, Jim Bodkins wrote: > >>On November 29, 2003 at 12:53:22, Jim Bodkins wrote: >> >>>On November 29, 2003 at 09:32:07, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On November 29, 2003 at 08:17:31, Palmer wrote: >>>> >>>>>I just remembered that some time ago there was a discussion here on CCC if >>>>>ruffian is a crafty clone or not. >>>>>Here some comments form robert hyatt to that topic: >>>>> >>>>>...I agree. The real test is in tactics. It is not easy to make a copy of >>>>>Crafty either better or worse at tactics, but particularly making it better is >>>>>non-trivial. It's far easier to twiddle with a few eval terms to make it >>>>>play significantly different... >>>>> >>>>>...In the case of Ruffian, I'm not sure it is anything at all, other than >>>>>a very unlikely happening. >>>>>Ruffian could be any of the following, in decreasing order of probability: >>>>>1. A copy of a freeware engine with some changes or additions. >>>>>2. A copy of a commercial engine, aided by a hex editor to change strings >>>>>to disguise what has happened. >>>>>3. A copy of a commercial engine, modified, after someone found access to >>>>>the un-released source code somehow. >>>>>4. A program written by a current commercial (or amateur) author and released >>>>>anonymously, for reasons I wouldn't try to guess. >>>>>5. A completely new program, developed by a completely new author, sight- >>>>>unseen by anybody until very recently. >>>>>It _could_ be any of those. I don't have an opinion yet, except that the >>>>>above list is written in decreasing probability order.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I think that if you're not prepared to give your full, real name (as the rules >>>>of CCC require), you don't get to make stupid and venal accusations about >>>>people. I believe that you posted your message purely to troll. I believe that >>>>you owe Per-Ola Valfridsson an apology. I believe that you are too cowardly and >>>>too weak to apologize as you should. >>>> >>>>Andrew Williams >>> >>> >>>I understood his post. If there is a problem (which I didnt see), let the admins >>>handle it. You said "I believe that you are too cowardly and too weak to >>>apologize as you should.". The question is, are you? >> >>My intention isnt to cause trouble, but your response seem extreme. It is >>interesting to see this happen a second time and clearly indicates a need for an >>alternate or new solution to this issue. > >A "second" time? What do you mean? > >Andrew The last was the accusation that Ruffian was derivative. That was proven to be false. Now List. Two times. Unfounded accusations later proven wrong. Almost harmed Valfridson (Is that his name) and surely has already harmed Reul. (The List case is still unfolding).
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.