TalkChess.com

ThomasJMiller wrote:

Tom Likens wrote:Hello Thomas,

Djinn is weak, but I know I haven't copied it--that said, I would be very curious who it is most similar to. Could you include it in the test, (latest public version is 0.992)?

thanks,
--tom

Hello Tom,
unfortunately Djinn supports only the Winboard protocol and Don's Similarity Tester works with UCI engines. I might try Wb2UCI, but I had some problems with it in the past.

Adam Hair wrote:

ThomasJMiller wrote:

Tom Likens wrote:Hello Thomas,

Djinn is weak, but I know I haven't copied it--that said, I would be very curious who it is most similar to. Could you include it in the test, (latest public version is 0.992)?

thanks,
--tom

Hello Tom,
unfortunately Djinn supports only the Winboard protocol and Don's Similarity Tester works with UCI engines. I might try Wb2UCI, but I had some problems with it in the past.

I think Djinn + wb2uci worked fine for me, but I do not quite remember. It is possible that you will have to change 'go depth 50' to 'go infinite'.

Sylwy wrote:Is here:



SilvianR

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Sylwy wrote:Is here:



SilvianR

Who is here

Sylwy wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Sylwy wrote:Is here:



SilvianR

Who is here

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

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.

Graham Banks wrote:

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.

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?

Adam Hair wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

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.

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?

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.