Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Rybka - How much Fruit is inside ?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:27:54 12/12/05

Go up one level in this thread

On December 12, 2005 at 15:09:25, G√ľnther Simon wrote:

>On December 12, 2005 at 14:17:21, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>On December 12, 2005 at 05:43:57, Chan Rasjid wrote:
><part 1>
>>>I left CCC for a few months(6) and came back finding Vasik finally released his
>>>first beta after many many years of chess programming.
>>>Great fun from the appereance of Rybka! Time to clone-guess and to test one's
>>>Sherlock-Home skill in unravelling the mystery "Why is Rybka so strong"
>>>I can never understand Daniel's post and the details even if I wanted to - meant
>>>for the top 1% of chess programmers.
><part 2>
>>> My raw take is that it is a clone.
>>>Definitely a clone - how else can a program reach 2800 as a first release. From
>>>all his CCC posts through the years, the truely discernimg experts (not
>>>necessarily you) among us know he could not come out with anything original or
>>>creative and he often mistake fail soft with hard,etc...etc.. ask him a basic
>>>question about recursive null-move and he would have himself exposed as a fraud
>>>and then you don't need to search too much of a proof. Just search the archives
>>>for all his silly postings! Do you then need any proof.
>>>Still getting solid evidence is great fun.
>>>Hope someone can prove how sharp my instinct is.
>>>No special regards for anyone or ill-will.
>>I am very sure it is not a clone.
>>Lots of amazingly strong engines come out of the blue.
>>For example:
>>In the case of Fruit, everyone could look for themselves and see:
>>Nothing but lots of old good ideas and new fresh ideas and no cut and paste from
>>somebody else at all.
>>Fabien's code is also an example not only of how to write a chess program but
>>how to program period.
>>Anyway, I think it is not a good thing to make statements that sound like
>>accusations with no evidence whatsoever.
>Hi Dann,
>I am not 100% sure, but I read the 2nd part of the post as
>pure irony, especially as it is in contradiction with part 1,
>at least IMHO.

Yes.  Now that I actually read the post with my brain engaged, I am liable to

Once again, I am smiley impaired.

Note to posters:
Please, in the future, sprinkle copious smilies into your posts:
;-) or :) or even :))
so that the humor will not escape my tiny little brain.

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.