Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 14:55:47 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2003 at 17:12:11, Jim Bodkins wrote: >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). I see. That makes two messages I have completely misunderstood. Andrew
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.