Gejsi Marku wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:16 pm
I use Eman. And I have definitely come across multiple times of instances where Eman found moves SF couldn't even after a long search. But let's not get mistaken here. That is not because Eman is different than SF. That is because it's experience file. And depending how big your experience file is. You can call Eman more like a giant book that keeps growing.
That's great. However, the experience file wasn't something created by Eman's author. It was copy-pasted from another open source engine derived from Stockfish, and it exists in Eman because the person that created it decided to share the source, so anybody can add experience files into their engine. But I don't see Eman's author crediting from where he copied this code (or the BIN book learning code) anywhere.
Note I defend Eman's existence, as it has improved my life and made me learn a lot about engines (like, how important time management is. 20 ELO per a point of Slow Mover doesn't sound like much, but if it's 10 off that's 200 elo. In the time of Rybka 4 she was very sensitive to time management settings and hardware, and I thought it was because Vas wasn't good at time management, but it turns out Stockfish's Slow Mover 100 is not optimal at all, and it's a mess depending on how early you leave book, sometimes too fast, sometimes too slow, so of course Eman's author can improve for this and provide more consistent play regardless of when book ends.)
What I don't like is the claims that it's almost an original engine, when it's clear Eman's author didn't even provide 5% of its code, perhaps not even 1%, and that apparently all the tools for someone to make an Eman equivalent but open source are there, but nobody had done it, so people are missing out.
In the current state of affairs Eman does not deserve to be the future number one.
http://www.talkchess.com/forum3/viewtop ... 10#p845482
