OpenChess

Anyway, if anyone has more insight into why anyone cares about this, thanks in advance for educating me.

Because someone said it was true (perhaps just operator error with this IDeA thing). And then that was copied (with no verification). And others wanted it to be true (at the level of sentiment), even if it wasn't. Isn't this how all rumours start, and indeed how history is sometimes written? I might have expected a quick retraction and/or mea culpa after more facts came to light, but has it really spiralled out of control?
EDIT: Looking at the TalkChess thread (only ~10 posts total), about the only item of interest was that Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit Beta X1 give similar scores (-0.32 at White's move 44). I will look at the Rybka forum thread later. EDIT: Just saw the "Hereditary blindness" thread on TalkChess, but nothing new there.

BB+ wrote:

Anyway, if anyone has more insight into why anyone cares about this, thanks in advance for educating me.

Because someone said it was true (perhaps just operator error with this IDeA thing). And then that was copied (with no verification). And others wanted it to be true (at the level of sentiment), even if it wasn't. Isn't this how all rumours start, and indeed how history is sometimes written? I might have expected a quick retraction and/or mea culpa after more facts came to light, but has it really spiralled out of control?
EDIT: Looking at the TalkChess thread (only ~10 posts total), about the only item of interest was that Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit Beta X1 give similar scores (-0.32 at White's move 44). I will look at the Rybka forum thread later. EDIT: Just saw the "Hereditary blindness" thread on TalkChess, but nothing new there.

I'm sure we'll see this cited as another position which demonstrates how Ippolit was cloned from Rybka in about 3 months, like all those positions Michael Diosi gave me a year ago which merely demonstrated that they behave completely differently, despite Michael's insistence. Does no one check their facts?

I'm sure we'll see this cited as another position which demonstrates how Ippolit was cloned from Rybka in about 3 months,

Satire:
X. Here's a position that shows that IPPOLIT and Houdini are clones of Rybka. They are the only engines that give a draw score, and Naum too. This is why we don't allow them on [fill-in-blank].
Y. I actually tested that position, and only Rybka and Naum show draw scores. If anything, it shows that they are not clones. [And said while being drowned out by the response: Maybe you should reconsider your decisi...]
X. Oh well, guess our informant made a minor boo-boo in the data. It happens. But they are still clones of course.

It seems that the original poster's comments were more directed at the fact that various (many?) engines show a sort of "no progress" here, in not being able to see their way to a big score too quickly. This could be due to multiple factors. Some engines just have bigger scores (in general) than others. And as I commented above, the question of how fast the passed pawns fall (and the bonuses given to them) can also conflate the issue.

I'm surprised that no one gave a result from Stockfish. After a few minutes, it's a bit below -4 (which could be more like -3 or even -2 for other engines), and the PV after Bb5 still lists White with 2 pawns left. I guess I disagree with the comment that Stockfish "understands" this better, and would just say that the evaluation heuristics turn out somewhat better. Given that (from my perspective) the issue is that the White pawns will eventually fall (post-horizon perhaps), it's not so clear what one could expect from an engine. I will say that the position does have some interest from the standpoint of comparative analysis of engines.

In other news, I'm guessing the cluster didn't "solve" this (whatever that means), or else we probably would have heard about it.

Please use this engine to Analyze
http://www.mediafire.com/?jdtetq6tcc4eufc

I can not send messages to the forum administrator!

Quocvuong82 wrote:I can not send messages to the forum administrator!

You are not allowed to use links until you've demonstrated that you're neither a spammer nor linking warez. You have now tried about 4 times to post a link to an engine called "Fire Clone 1.0", cloned and compiled by Monarch. What is it, and why are you so keen on posting that link? I was happy to take care of this via PM (maybe try removing the link from your PM?), but we can take this public, if you prefer.

jb

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: You are not allowed to use links until you've demonstrated that you're neither a spammer nor linking warez. You have now tried about 4 times to post a link to an engine called "Fire Clone 1.0", cloned and compiled by Monarch. What is it, and why are you so keen on posting that link? I was happy to take care of this via PM (maybe try removing the link from your PM?), but we can take this public, if you prefer.

jb

Fire clone 1.0 was developed from Fire 1.31 source code. I changed the method of Material value, change some settings .... I remain the author's name (Kranium and Sentinel)

I'm sorry because I can not send messages to the forum administrator

Quocvuong82 wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: You are not allowed to use links until you've demonstrated that you're neither a spammer nor linking warez. You have now tried about 4 times to post a link to an engine called "Fire Clone 1.0", cloned and compiled by Monarch. What is it, and why are you so keen on posting that link? I was happy to take care of this via PM (maybe try removing the link from your PM?), but we can take this public, if you prefer.

jb

Fire clone 1.0 was developed from Fire 1.31 source code. I changed the method of Material value, change some settings .... I remain the author's name (Kranium and Sentinel)

I'm sorry because I can not send messages to the forum administrator

Did you remove any code or any particular feature/function?

Can you post the engine here, together with the source code ?