It is instructive, I agree.Laskos wrote:Thanks Adam, the first graph looks a lot like mine. It's also true that adding a lot of Fruitsih 2.1 close derivatives like Toga, etc. and Rybkish 1.0 like Rybka 2, etc. scrambles the upper lineages. I may include some to show that your second graph is also correct. But I would intuitively pay more attention to the first graph, because I am not quite so interested in Rybka 1,2,3,4 obvious lineage, which will scramble Rybka 1 - Fruit 2.1 relation (Rybka 4 being a totally different animal). I even might suppress some of the over-represented Ippos in my graph. This is an art-science what we are doing, but it's at least instructive .Adam Hair wrote:Kai, I think you maybe saying " all obvious things are confirmed" is a bitLaskos wrote: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 ).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.
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).
I created a dendrogram from my data using Systat. I used the same
engines that you used ( except for Shredder 10 and 12 ). Complete
linkage and normalized Euclidean distance.
Looks alot like yours, maybe Fruit and Rybka 1.0 Beta/Strelka not quite
as close as your data, but no big difference I think.
Then I added 10 more engines.
Rybka 3 and Houdini/Ivanhoe are now closer than Fruit and Rybka 1.0
I believe the best approach is to include as many engine families as
possible, at least for an overall picture.