Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 15:10:45 05/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Evgenii, On May 28, 2005 at 08:02:22, Evgenii Manev wrote: >On May 28, 2005 at 05:14:57, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >>On May 27, 2005 at 17:21:42, Thomas Mayer wrote: >> >>>Hi Alex, >>> >>>> Or strange legal positions like this mate in 1: >>>> >>>> 1QqQqQq1/r6Q/Q6q/q6Q/B2q4/q6Q/k6K/1qQ1QqRb w - - 0 1 >>>> >>>> Crafty calculates in the background and gives no output, like Fafis. >>> >>>this one does not proof anything. The engine is simply lost in the qsearch. This >>>happens to most engines which a) do not restrict qsearch to a specific depth >>>(correct for most - e.g. Fritz... :) and b) do not check for input during the >>>qsearch, which is also true for most engines. >>> >>>The other stuff makes one at least quite suspicious, but it's not yet fully >>>convincing. I wonder what the other programmers think about that. >>> >>>Greets, Thomas >> >> >> >>Hi Thomas, >>when compiling Quark, do you obfuscate as Fafis does ? >>Why should a hobby engine need that ? >>Matthias. > >may be because the author has idea that his engine will go commercial? well, even the pro's don't do it... When someone encrypts his code this is a bit strange, combined with the other observations one really get suspicious if he has to hide something... Greets, Thomas
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.