Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Who is hereSylwy wrote:Is here:
SilvianR
THE CC SCIENTISTS !
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Who is hereSylwy wrote:Is here:
SilvianR
Sylwy wrote:Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Who is hereSylwy wrote:Is here:
SilvianR
THE CC SCIENTISTS !
elcabesa wrote:it's has been the most beautiful toy I received, I used lot's of ideas code from stockfish and other open source engines and I alway worried about "being a clone".
Now I'm happy. My engine is not strong but it's not a clone too
Protector 1.5.0 is most similar to Stockfish DD, yet Protector came out first. Therefore not much can be read into that, despite the correlation being less than the 12.5 cutoff mentioned?ThomasJMiller wrote:Will programmers receive toys and candy or coal this Christmas? To find out, let's check Santa's Naughty or Nice List
Latest releases of many commercial and free engines have been included together with the most important open source ones.
Testing all the engines and preparing the dendogram has taken a lot of time so I wouldn't like this thread to be moved to the Engine Origins subforum. Therefore, please, avoid making comments like XXX is clone of YYY or so.
Everyone can nowadays read a dendogram, so you can draw your own conclusions by yourself.
Thanks to Adam Hair who helped me improve selfsimilarity results.
In this dendrogram, Protector 1.5.0 is most similiar to the group of Stockfish engines, not necessarily Stockfish DD itself. If we could look at the similarity percentages for each pair, I believe that Protector 1.5.0 would be more similar to SF 2.3.1 than to SF DD.Graham Banks wrote:Protector 1.5.0 is most similar to Stockfish DD, yet Protector came out first. Therefore not much can be read into that, despite the correlation being less than the 12.5 cutoff mentioned?ThomasJMiller wrote:Will programmers receive toys and candy or coal this Christmas? To find out, let's check Santa's Naughty or Nice List
Latest releases of many commercial and free engines have been included together with the most important open source ones.
Testing all the engines and preparing the dendogram has taken a lot of time so I wouldn't like this thread to be moved to the Engine Origins subforum. Therefore, please, avoid making comments like XXX is clone of YYY or so.
Everyone can nowadays read a dendogram, so you can draw your own conclusions by yourself.
Thanks to Adam Hair who helped me improve selfsimilarity results.
The confidence of the branches cannot be assessed if a bootstrap analysis is not done. Quite likely, this protector similarity is meaningless.Adam Hair wrote:In this dendrogram, Protector 1.5.0 is most similiar to the group of Stockfish engines, not necessarily Stockfish DD itself. If we could look at the similarity percentages for each pair, I believe that Protector 1.5.0 would be more similar to SF 2.3.1 than to SF DD.Graham Banks wrote:Protector 1.5.0 is most similar to Stockfish DD, yet Protector came out first. Therefore not much can be read into that, despite the correlation being less than the 12.5 cutoff mentioned?ThomasJMiller wrote:Will programmers receive toys and candy or coal this Christmas? To find out, let's check Santa's Naughty or Nice List
Latest releases of many commercial and free engines have been included together with the most important open source ones.
Testing all the engines and preparing the dendogram has taken a lot of time so I wouldn't like this thread to be moved to the Engine Origins subforum. Therefore, please, avoid making comments like XXX is clone of YYY or so.
Everyone can nowadays read a dendogram, so you can draw your own conclusions by yourself.
Thanks to Adam Hair who helped me improve selfsimilarity results.
So, the most independent-minded (so to speak) engine of all those tested is Shredder, which hasn't been updated for years.ThomasJMiller wrote:Everyone can nowadays read a dendogram, so you can draw your own conclusions by yourself.
You are right Miguel. Unfortunately I'll be very busy till the end of the year. When possible I'll make some analysis of the data.michiguel wrote:The confidence of the branches cannot be assessed if a bootstrap analysis is not done. Quite likely, this protector similarity is meaningless.
Miguel
all branches >= 15 are surely meaningless...Marek Soszynski wrote:So, the most independent-minded (so to speak) engine of all those tested is Shredder, which hasn't been updated for years.ThomasJMiller wrote:Everyone can nowadays read a dendogram, so you can draw your own conclusions by yourself.