Author: Joseph Ciarrochi
Date: 19:43:35 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
I am very respectiful of the creator of fruit 2.2. and the way he has influenced programing. Having said that, it looks to me that toga is similar to fruit, but also clearly distinguishable from fruit in terms of how it evaluats a postion. Check out the stats here : http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/cegt/engine-distance-table-best-300.shtml Unforutnately, there are no head to head comparisons of fruit and toga, but you can look at how similar they are when competing against the same engine. For example, togas evaluations are more similar to ktula 7.5 evaluations than fruits. this is not definitive reasoning, unfortunately. Fruit went comericial between version 2.1 and 2.2, and the new code was no longer public access. maybe the observed differences are due to what was added in 2.2. i.e., maybe fruit 2.1 is almost identifical to toga, but 2.2 is quite different? any data on this? best Joseph On December 22, 2005 at 22:15:18, Peter Kappler wrote: >On December 22, 2005 at 20:33:50, Zappa wrote: > >>A different view: >> >>Hydra, too weak to show at Paderborn >>Zappa, the best thing since sliced bread >>Fruit, proving once again that KISS works. >>Toga II, the clone of fruit with literally 50 lines changed that people somehow >>credit as a real engine > >And isn't it true the the author of Toga initially tried to claim that the code >was 100% his? It's beyond me why anybody recognizes Toga as a distinct engine. >It sounds like it contains about as much original work as a Chessmaster >personality. > >-Peter > > >>Rybka, an interesting and totally different approach that seems to work real >>well >> >>anthony
This page took 0.01 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.