Author: Mike S.
Date: 17:08:44 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 11:57:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 11:03:36, Jonas Bylund wrote: > >>Was there any evidence? did i miss something? >> >>Jonas > >There may be disagreement about the word clone but there was evidence that >something is wrong with it and it is not exactly an original program. There was no evidence, only very weak pseudo-evidence not even sufficient for a serious suspicion. Classes names and variables names don't prove anything. I've also read, that unlike Crafty List is not using bitboards (which doesn't prove it can't be a clone in some parts, I know, but it strongly indicates that the clone suspicion hasn't much sense when there is such a fundamental design difference). Basically the tendency is, that some people continue the "clone" talk again and again simply for the reason that ICGA has disqualified it, because those people seem to trust that it is a very serious official organzation which would never do that in an unfounded and unfair way. But the judgement of those who raised the protest was more realistic :-) Computerchess has become a tough and sometimes dirty competition. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.