TalkChess.com

[Michael Sherwin]

I found a 64bit version of Ippolit and compared its play, node rate (adjusted), depth of search and other factors to Rybka232a32 (well that is the latest version that I have) and determined to the best of my ability that they are not even close to being the same.

Subjective first conclusion: not a clone

Based on what I have read about Ippolit's parameters, it is my experience as a programmer that if you take an engine based on soundness of play and make it more aggressive and do wild pruning to gain depth, etc, you end up with a weaker engine. Not a stronger one. Is Ippolit really so "poorly tuned" that it can be this strong.

Subjective second conclusion: not a clone

I scanned both Strelka's and Ippolit's source code. Assuming that Vas has not done a complete rewrite then I give the following opinion. Nothing is the same in the two sources. The data structures are different. The style is extremely different. The move generation is very different. The search functions are not in the style of Fruit/Strelka. The utility functions are very different. The two sources do not look like they are from the same planet let alone the same country!

Objective third opinion: not a clone

---

I did this analysis quickly, so I could be wrong. But, I will be very surprised if I am.

---

The dilemma is, now anyone wishing to be competitive at the highest level, has a new starting place or a moral reason to not even try. Why? What is the injury to the honest author? Well, simple. It is the fact that others will use this source to create even stronger engines in record time. So, even if Ippolit is a clone, that will not change this moral dilemma one darn bit. All engine authors have a right to compete with each other on equal ground. That ground has just become a lot higher.

There are those that do not want the ground to be elevated. That might be the true reason behind the attempt to squash this hippo in our backyard before it's noticed.
_________________
Regards,
Mike