bob wrote: Eizenhammer wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.
Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."
I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.
Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.
Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:
It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "
Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."
Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.
He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."
This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.
" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "
So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?
"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."
Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?
"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."
The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.
Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."
This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.
It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:
"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>
Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.