Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:29:21 12/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 13:30:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 13:01:21, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I sent a letter to David Levy > > >I doubt it to, based on output. However I have not been asked >in any official query, as was done in the past with other programs. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I was forwarded by the person who raised the protest (no that wasn't me) to the ICGA a month or 2 ago: ----- Original Message ----- From: <censored> To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@cis.uab.edu> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:05 AM Subject: Potential Crafty clone > Hello Robert, > > I have reason to believe a rather well-known program > is actually a Crafty clone. It's rather new, the first > versions already being extremely strong, the lastest being > one of the top free engines. > > My suspicion started after observing that it had some holes > in the evaluation which are also present in Crafty. It has > a slightly higher speed than Crafty, uses the exact same > extensions. The major difference seems to be that it uses > (as far as I can determine) a crude form of tactical forward > pruning, or at the least it searches a bit deeper but is > positionally weaker. > > I have been able to determine of what source files the > program consists (it's only available as an .exe): > > attacks.c > board.c > captures.c > evasions.c > hash.c > init.c > interface.c > io.c > programname.c > make.c > moves.c > next.c <----- > pawns.c > phase.c <----- > root.c <----- > score.c > search.c > speed.c > timer.c > uint64.c > undo.c > utility.c <----- > > Most of these are rather generic so it's not suspicious > that they are also in Crafty, with the exception of those > indicated, as far as I know they are more or less unusual AND > also present in crafty. There are some other things, like the > seperation of make/unmake (here called undo), which as far as > I know is also unusual. > > A previous version of the program consisted of: > > attacks.c <====== > bench.c <------ > captures.c > chessboard.c > hash.c <====== > init.c <====== > io.c > programname.c > make.c <====== > moves.c > next.c <====== > pawnhash.c > phase.c <====== > ponder.c <------ > recog.c > score.c > search.c <====== > searchr.c <------ !!! > sort.c > test.c <------ > timer.c <====== (time.c) > undo.c <====== (unmake.c) > utility.c <====== > > There are a lot of additional hits with Crafty now, the most > alarming being searchr.c. I indicated all sources which are > also present in Crafty, there are a lot of them. > > Even more alarming is this: > > material_score > pawn_structure_score > passed_pawn_score > king_safety_score > interactive_score > total_score > > His evaluation debugger has the exact same structure as the one > in Crafty. Especially nice is the 'interactive score', I've never > seen this anywhere but in Crafty either, and it's certainly something > that is unlikely to be arrived at independently. Combining this > with the rest of the hits makes me very very very suspicious of this > program. > > What is your opinion? Am I paranoid or are we onto something here? > Is there any way to track down more information? > --
This page took 0.01 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.