Adam Hair wrote:
I don't think there is any doubt Fruit has been a large influence by
anybody.
Average linkage between groups is more robust than complete linkage.
I have made two graphs, using Systat and your data, as well as Average
and Pearson. I changed the diagonal from 100% to 75%. That was the
cause of the difference in scale between your graphs and mine.
As you can see, the graph is basically identical to yours. I just doing
this so that we both know that Systat and SPSS will produce the same
results.
For the second graph, I removed Houdini, Strelka, Ivanhoe, Rybka 4,
and Naum 4.2.
I did this to point out, as you also did, that some care has to be given
to which engines are included. The clusters can change with the inclusion
and exclusion of engines. My belief is, in order to avoid bias as much as
possible, several versions from each engine family should be included.
And as many engine families as possible should be included. Then I
think the clustering analysis can give us a true picture.
Wow, your graphs are almost identical to mine, therefore we can cross-check our results. I will stick to "Average Linkage between Groups" and "Pearson correlation (bivariate correlations) measure", as these give me the more stable results over all the range, from main branches to individual engines.
I added Crafty 20.14 and some claimed to be related to it engines, and, as expected, they seem indeed related
. Now the Crafty family is represented as well. My Crafty test was a pain, with a very slow WB2UCI interface, it took me 5 hours to test Crafty at 100 ms.
A and
B are two groups of very unrelated engines. Group
A might be related in some degree to Fruit. Group
B seems not related at all to Fruit (if the Fruit hypothesis stands). Crafty, Fruit 2.1, and Rybka 3 families are named.
Kai