Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 05:24:14 01/25/99
Hi: I have been amazed a little bit by the fact that in the long thread about bionic as a clone or not nobody seems to have given data about how much Bionic is really something new or not, to begin with. The only thing that has been said about his presumed novelty is Dgeordge Vidanovic's statement that it is new; only thing that has been said about his presumed clone quality is the afirmation by Bob that a program that has changed only 1% of the code cannot be considered something new. Well, which are the data to support one or the other statement? Maybe also some elaboration would be needed. By example, how much percentage of code change it is neccesary to talk of a change? It is enough a different behaviour of the engine? By the way, this last point could be deceiving. I can change dramatically the behaviour of CM6000 just altering strongly one of the paremeters of the code, say, putting the queen value at only 0.5 pawns. I bet that that would be enough to get an extremely different PV from the engine. Fernando
This page took 0.03 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.