Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: guilty until probed the opposite

Author: Alex Schmidt

Date: 22:26:15 05/29/05

Go up one level in this thread


Hello,

>If someone accuses an engine to be a clone, he must collect A LOT of PROOFS
>before exposing his feeling to the world. Asking an author to proove his

The proofs shown would be enough for every court.

We have the same moves in _all_ tested positions where several moves lead to a
mate or a draw. (~2% of the UCI engines did the same)

We have a very special feature which is known only from Crafty, no one of the
programmers here said "I have the same feature in my engine", no one even told
what the feature is used for. (I would guess less than 1% have this)

We have an opening book which works also with older versions of Crafty. (I would
guess less than 1% of the engines would use the same book format coincidentally)

We have the same behaviour if kings are missing in the fen string, Crafty thinks
there are kings on e1 and e8. (~10% do this)

We have 2 strings which are _very_ seldom, after searching many engines we found
only 1 engine where one of the strings is used. (let's say 5% for each string)

We have the same behaviour in most illegal positions. (less than 5 %)

The probability that an engine have the same behaviour in all of the above cases
is 0,0000000005% (one of 2 Billion), and it's calculated in order to be on the
safe side.

I think this is enough to ask the programmer, especially if he wants to go
commercial. It's up to him to show the source or not, but as long as he even
didn't try to explain one of the similaries this are enough proofs for me.

Best,
Alex




This page took 0.09 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.