Why hasn't Naum 4 received recognician?

[S.Taylor]

In my opinion naum 4 tries to imitate the Rybka style, Naumilov even confessed once it, he tried to copy the Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation so I prefer a more original style it doesnt matter for me that a engine can beat Rybka, I like to see play engines like Thinker, Bright 0.4!!! Deep Sjeng etc. Yes Naum is stronger but is like see play a little Rybka
Regards

In my opinion, Naum 4's style of play is quite different to that of Rybka's.

In what ways is its style different? More exciting?
Well, soon, Rybka 4 will be on its way, which might improve Rybka 3, as well as include what's lacking in style compared to Naum 4. If Naum is on to something, might he perhaps bring out Naum 5 close to the time of Rybka 4, and keep up the competition?
As long as it remains close in elo, and a strong second, if the style is also greater, then it might be very valuable, and a true and honest alternative to Rybka. If there is real wierd style, and still within 100 elo of the greatest Rybka, I might suspect Naum has unsurpassed genius, not worrying about the extra 100- elo. Normally wierd adventurous style comes at the cost of strength, If it does not, then that sounds a promising alarm, to me!

[Graham Banks]

In my opinion, Naum 4's style of play is quite different to that of Rybka's.

In what ways is its style different? More exciting?

I believe so.

[Nimzovik]

Weird and exciting are adjectives applied to naum....I wonder what this means....... Wildly tactical? Posistional?

[Graham Banks]

Weird and exciting are adjectives applied to naum....I wonder what this means....... Wildly tactical? Posistional?

Aggressive in a positional sense.
One interesting aspect is that it's not afraid to advance the pawns in front of its king in order to maintain a positional crush. This is something I haven't seen to such a degree in other top engines.
It's certainly not boring.

[mclane]

naum is impressing.

http://schachcomputerwelt.foren-city.de ... naum4.html

the only weakness i have seen so far was the evaluation of connected passed pawns. it underestimated them from score while rybka gave very high scores for the 3 connected pawns.

rybka was right doing so.