Author: Paul H
Date: 14:17:25 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 16:36:10, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 15:06:21, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >Hi Thomas, > >>Anyway, Frank is correct to wait some more days for the reaction of Euginio. > >Yes, I think so! > >>What else should he do in your opinion ? > >Must thinking on the middle ages! >Really an event if a person gave the information "a hag, look a hag". > >And the others comes and have the same opinion ... a hag, a hag! >Because the others are thinking only on the event: "burning of witches" > >The clone discuss from the past in CCC (good example is the first time Ruffian >is freely available) the carnival barkers have an really big event. > >Best >Frank Hi Frank, I hope you are not comparing my code analysis with how others in the past have accused clones. The argument here is not based on the output of the engine or the strenght of the engine or the kind of moves that it generates. If ElChinito is only Elo 1000, it still does change the fact that the binary ElChinito.exe is made from Crafty source. If it is Elo 1000 using crafty code, it just means that there are changes that made it so. I just did a thorough code analysis. It reveals facts that even Bob only realizes now. Even without the source code, Bob agrees that those portions of code is from Crafty. Again, that is without the source code. Have you seen anyone do this kind of technical analysis here before? And after all that, you compare it to a primitive witch hunt? I am about to also post the disassembly of the function NextMove(). These are all technical facts. Why don't you review all the code analysis and tell us that it is wrong.
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.