Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: List 512 UCI und Aristarch 4.37 ready for Download :-) !!!

Author: Andreas Aicher

Date: 18:20:28 01/27/04

Go up one level in this thread


Hallo Thomas,
möchte jetzt, um diese wenig sinnvolle Diskussion nicht unnötig zu prolongieren,
auf deutsch antworten; ob nun der Ausschluss und die Sperre gerechtfertig waren
oder nicht (erfolgte ja auch aus einem anderen Grunde), sollte eigentlich
inzwischen klar sein, dass List eben kein Crafty Clone (auch nicht in
Teilen)ist, unabhängig von D.C. hat sich auch ein anderer Programmierer, der den
Quellcode von List kennt (steht im Userforum des OM`s) dazu sehr eindeutig
geäussert. Kurz, es bleibt nicht viel übrig, zumindest wiegt das, was für List
spricht deutlich schwerer, als das gegen ihn.
Es hat für mich den Eindruck, dass einige unbedingt wollen, es möge doch was
hängenbleiben.

Gruss Andreas


On January 27, 2004 at 14:49:12, Thomas Mayer wrote:

>Hi Mogens,
>
>>> well, for a programmer the showed stuff here in this forum somewhere should
>>> be already enoug to get very suspicious... of course similar strings,
>>> filenames etc. do not give enough evidence to call something a clone or
>>> crafty-related or whatever - but it makes one suspicious... Suspicious
>>> enough to ask the author for some prove. He refused. According to the rule
>>> he must be disqualified then because he does not follow the rules...
>
>>> Anyway, I heard that someone has even debugged List (I have no idea which
>>> version) and in the evaluation nearly everything was crafty-like. I have not
>>> done this myself, so I can not say to much about this - but this makes one
>>> even more suspicious...
>
>> Since it's a Crafty clone, it would be easy to check a number of positions
>> for similarity in evaluation. That has to be the most minimal of
>> requirements for raising suspicion.
>
>Again, it was never claimed as a clone -> the claim was only that it might have
>some Crafty in it - which is a) not allowed due to the rules of the ICGA and b)
>not allowed to the Crafty license itself (you may take a look in the Crafty
>Source Code). And as far as I know they did test some positions in a one ply
>search... (Where the search itself does not play such a big role - mainly the
>eval decides about the move choosed in a one ply search...) - and the version of
>List they did test showed almost always the same score and move...
>
>And about those facts given here in the forum -> for every programmer I did talk
>with, those shown facts would have been enough that the Author should be asked
>what is going on...
>
>> A general search among amateur engines would IMO reveal numerous similarities
>> without conctituting anything resembling a clone.
>
>I doubt it... I still think that most programmers are honest people. At the
>moment I feel only suspicious about two of the better (better means better then
>Gerbil or TSCP) amateur engines...
>
>>> If this is NOT true, I wonder why he had so many problems a) to show the
>>> Jury some evidence that it is original b) to give afterwards some
>>> statements.
>
>> Well, maybe he got pissed or lack of time. It really doesn't matter. The
>> value of the accusation determines either way.
>
>again, the given facts were enough that the ICGA was forced to ask Mr. Reul what
>is going on... Nearly every programmer agrees to that.
>
>Greets, Thomas



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.