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, Günther 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: >>Ruffian >>Fruit >>Zappa >>Rybka >> >>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. >> >>IMO-YMMV. > >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 agree. 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.