TalkChess.com

http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

No 32-bit binary !!!!!!!



Silvian R

Sylwy wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

No 32-bit binary !!!!!!!



Silvian R

Come on Silvian....

A rich citizen from the EU like yourself should get a modern x64 machine regards,
Dr.D

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Sylwy wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

No 32-bit binary !!!!!!!



Silvian R

Come on Silvian....

A rich citizen from the EU like yourself should get a modern x64 machine regards,
Dr.D

Jawohl Herr Doc !

Having also an EU wife (Frau Ruxy)..............

Silvian R

Sylwy wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Sylwy wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

No 32-bit binary !!!!!!!



Silvian R

Come on Silvian....

A rich citizen from the EU like yourself should get a modern x64 machine regards,
Dr.D

Jawohl Herr Doc !

Having also an EU wife (Frau Ruxy)..............

Silvian R

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:http://sourceforge.net/projects/protect ... p_redirect

Many thanks to Raimund Heid and to Dr.Wael Deeb too

Btw, my 6th sense says that Protector's author is studied mainly from Stockfish...
Note also that even its strength is near to the older Stockfish version too!
And I hope to see the next Protector's release to be much stronger...!!

But however,
I think overall...Protector seems to be clean!

sim version 3
------ Protector 1.7.0 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0) ------
54.48 Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit (time: 50 ms scale: 1.0)
53.95 Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
53.20 Stockfish 1.7 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.99 Stockfish 1.7.1 JA (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.99 Stockfish 1.5 JA 64bit (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
52.40 Stockfish 140614 64 SSE4.2 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.94 Critter 0.90 64-bit SSE4 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.86 MinkoChess 1.3 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.21 Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
51.12 RobboLito 0.085g3 w32 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.81 Murka 3 x64 UCI (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.25 Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.23 Fire 3.0 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.22 Equinox 3.20 x64mp (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.21 Naum 4.6 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
50.10 Octochess revision 5190 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
49.24 Komodo64 2.03 DC (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
48.45 TwinFish 0.07 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.67 Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.60 Gull 3 x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.37 Strelka 2.0 B (time: 50 ms scale: 1.0)
47.17 Bobcat 3.25 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
47.14 Rodent 1.4 (build 2) (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.70 Cyrano 0.6b17 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.62 cheng4 0.36a (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
45.07 Daydreamer 1.75 JA (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
43.48 Vajolet 2.48 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
38.06 Booot 5.2.0(64) (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
37.91 Igorrit 0.086v8_x64 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
26.29 Arasan 17.2 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)


Best,
Sedat

Sedat Canbaz wrote:I think overall...Protector seems to be clean!

So where is the line ???

less than 55 is clean
55 to 60 not clean ?

or what is the theory ?...

ernest wrote:

Sedat Canbaz wrote:I think overall...Protector seems to be clean!

So where is the line ???

less than 55 is clean
55 to 60 not clean ?

or what is the theory ?...

The answer is below:
- SCCT Rules


Btw, Protector was lucky with 1% point...otherwise I would not allow it in SCCT


Best,
Sedat

Hello Ernest:

ernest wrote:

Sedat Canbaz wrote:I think overall...Protector seems to be clean!

So where is the line ???

less than 55 is clean
55 to 60 not clean ?

or what is the theory ?...

I think that > 60% is tagged as a clone while between 55% and 60% is tagged as dubious. These bounds were proposed by Adam Hair in his study 'A Pairwise Comparison of Chess Engine Move Selections'. I agree in the fact that it is difficult to determine those bounds. As SF 2.1.1 was tested, I guess that it was the last available version at the time, so the study is not recent. SF 2.1.1 was released on May 8th, 2011 and SF 2.2 was released on December 29, 2011, so Adam completed his study around three years ago.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

Ajedrecista wrote:Hello Ernest:

ernest wrote:

Sedat Canbaz wrote:I think overall...Protector seems to be clean!

So where is the line ???

less than 55 is clean
55 to 60 not clean ?

or what is the theory ?...

I think that > 60% is tagged as a clone while between 55% and 60% is tagged as dubious. These bounds were proposed by Adam Hair in his study 'A Pairwise Comparison of Chess Engine Move Selections'. I agree in the fact that it is difficult to determine those bounds. As SF 2.1.1 was tested, I guess that it was the last available version at the time, so the study is not recent. SF 2.1.1 was released on May 8th, 2011 and SF 2.2 was released on December 29, 2011, so Adam completed his study around three years ago.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

Hello Ajedrecista,

Good points...

Btw, the limit 55% and above is superior, it almost perfectly suits for my needs !

Otherwise...If SCCT limit was 60% and above...
Then my Top 20 chess engines will be based mainly on Rybkanians and Stockfishians
And this would be a BIG injustice...for those Authors who work very honestly with own ideas...
I mean the original creators will have no chance to participate in Top 20...
Note also that I use time: 100 ms scale: 1.0, it's approx.5 % below than Pia's method

So...SCCT limit is 60 % according to Pia sim test test results!

BTW,
In this way...(with my current used SCCT conditions)
Dubious engines (e.g clones, derivatives) have no any chances to participate...
Exception, in case of + 100 Elo stronger...


Best,
Sedat