Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:52:01 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 09:35:37, Steven Edwards wrote: >Some comments to various replies: > >1. The proposed fingerprinting scheme is not intended to detect cloning of code >that is not immediately related to move selection (why bother?), so criticisms >on that basis are irrelevent. if i throw out crafty's evaluation and stick in my own evaluation, i will pass your test. do you really think that such an engine should be allowed to play in a computer tournament? cheers martin >2. If the test suite is run through the same interface that is used to play >games in the event, then intentional faking on the suite is going to be >difficult or impossible to perform. > >3. If there is doubt about faking the test suite positions, then an additional >test suite can be made from games actually played it the event. A difference >here will indicate probabe faking on the initial test suite or certain faking on >the secondary test. > >4. The test EPD output will include a PV several moves long for each position. >The probability of non-clone matching declines as the ply increases; the >matching of long chucks of the PV for many different positions would be a risk >too high for a cloner to take. > >---------- > >Writing a similarity tester using EPD input should be a simple task of >mulivariate analysis correlation. Perhaps I'll do this in an upcoming article >in the _NACCA Journal_.
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.