michiguel wrote:
In all the data that I have seen (from different people), Strelka's behavior is very different from Fruit's, or to put it in more accurate terms, is as different as other unrelated engines.
Miguel
1. No matter how similar is Strelka 1.8 to Fruit 2.1, Rybka 1.0 Beta is just _a little_ less similar or _a little_ more similar to Fruit 2.1 than Strelka 1.8, as in the example given in the previous post. The determining factor _therefore_ is the relation of Strelka to Fruit, and Fabien is the most adequate person to make claims.
2. Probably either I am concocting the results or the hierarchical clustering iterations in IBM SPSS went nuts. On this graph Rybka 1.0 Beta is more related to Fruit 2.1 than Shredder 12 is to Shredder 10, or Houdini 1.5 to Rybka 3, for that matter.
michiguel wrote:
In all the data that I have seen (from different people), Strelka's behavior is very different from Fruit's, or to put it in more accurate terms, is as different as other unrelated engines.
Miguel
1. No matter how similar is Strelka 1.8 to Fruit 2.1, Rybka 1.0 Beta is just _a little_ less similar or _a little_ more similar to Fruit 2.1 than Strelka 1.8, as in the example given in the previous post. The determining factor _therefore_ is the relation of Strelka to Fruit, and Fabien is the most adequate person to make claims.
2. Probably either I am concocting the results or the hierarchical clustering iterations in IBM SPSS went nuts. On this graph Rybka 1.0 Beta is more related to Fruit 2.1 than Shredder 12 is to Shredder 10, or Houdini 1.5 to Rybka 3, for that matter.
Kai
In the data you sent me before, Glaurung is closer to Fruit than R1 or Strelka to Fruit, which makes me doubt of the "stylistic" relationship between R1 or S to F. In Adam's data and Michael Hart's, when they included more engines, the relation between S and F fell apart. More engines got in between (but I am saying this without checking details). I always saw distinct branches.
Of course, this does not mean absence of cloning or confirmation of it (the material tables may be a dominant factor in changing the "style" of the engine) but I am not sure we can say Strelka's style is close to Fruit more than Glaurung's.
It is very clear, Strelka's "style" is w/o question Rybka's.
George Tsavdaris wrote:c) Posts in the rybkaforum about that have been removed for some reason, perhaps when they saw this thread looking for such Vasik's statement.
I saw them moving a 2008 thread yesterday.
It was popped up by the moderator by adding a post like "bump".
Then another post saying that the other "Who's the clone now?" thread was accidentally moved away.
I thought they wanted to attract attention to that 2008 thread.
But it was gone soon afterwards.
But never mind how suspicious that looks, let's not rely too much on the Rybka forum as a source of information, shall we?
Who remembers Vasik saying it?
I don't need the exact quote.
George Tsavdaris wrote:c) Posts in the rybkaforum about that have been removed for some reason, perhaps when they saw this thread looking for such Vasik's statement.
I saw them moving a 2008 thread yesterday.
It was popped up by the moderator by adding a post like "bump".
Then another post saying that the other "Who's the clone now?" thread was accidentally moved away.
I thought they wanted to attract attention to that 2008 thread.
But it was gone soon afterwards.
But never mind how suspicious that looks, let's not rely too much on the Rybka forum as a source of information, shall we?
Who remembers Vasik saying it?
I don't need the exact quote.
Fabien.
Hi Fabien,
they don't allow clone talk in the Rybka forum. All clone threads are moved to a hidden subforum that members with 500+ posts there have access to.
michiguel wrote:
In the data you sent me before, Glaurung is closer to Fruit than R1 or Strelka to Fruit, which makes me doubt of the "stylistic" relationship between R1 or S to F. In Adam's data and Michael Hart's, when they included more engines, the relation between S and F fell apart. More engines got in between (but I am saying this without checking details). I always saw distinct branches.
Of course, this does not mean absence of cloning or confirmation of it (the material tables may be a dominant factor in changing the "style" of the engine) but I am not sure we can say Strelka's style is close to Fruit more than Glaurung's.
It is very clear, Strelka's "style" is w/o question Rybka's.
Miguel
Using my data, in your tree (not the dendrite), Fruit appears as an isolated engine, which, I am sorry to say, is unlikely, Fruit being an inspiration to many. We are using different clustering methods, for now I trust my graph better, all obvious things are confirmed, and there are some surprises too (you know ).
Disregarding this,
The fact is, my point (1) stands, _therefore_ it is up to Fabien to make claims about the relation between Strelka and Fruit (with implications on Rybka 1.0 Beta).
Kai
Last edited by Laskos on Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
John_F wrote:If my memory serves me correctly, several posters on this forum have said something to the general effect that 'Fabien does not care what Vas did with Rybka 1, so why should anyone else care?'.
I saw something like that on Saturday.
I was incorrectly quoted.
So the message is: I do care if the engine is commercial.
What difference it makes is for each of you to decide.
Xann wrote:So the message is: I do care if the engine is commercial.
What difference it makes is for each of you to decide.
Fabien.
Fabien - if you believe that Rybka is a Fruit ripoff, I sincerely hope that some sort of legal action is taken that can sort the issue out once and for all. The community is very divided at present.
).