Elvis has left the building Steve and Terry....

[Robert Weck]

That must be because there are more chess engines than chess computers these days. It must be to do with deflation.

No, there is only one engine! all the others are just clones...


regards,
Robert

[George Tsavdaris]

Turthfully Chris, I'm not that interested in this unending saga...sorry.

Damn, and I do my best to make my puzzles difficult for you.

The always used argument is that in most other positions they do not have identical or even comparable evaluations.....

But my opinion is that ALL engines(that do not relate each other) will have different evaluations and behavior in all positions, except in testpositions that are very easy and would give mate scores or draws.

But Rybka and Strelka give SO MANY IDENTICAL behavior and evaluations in simple positions or fortresses, as also there is also the Strelka-Ply= Rybka-Ply+2 pattern and also we observe the same mate bugs for these programs as also the same UCI output, and also the same evaluation in K vs K positions which is a non-draw score!
Coincidence once, coincidence twice, coincidence 3 times, coincidence 4 times, coincidence 5 times,etc......No way.....


In my opinion it is ridiculous to still believe that author of Strelka 1.8 hasn't used Rybka's 1.0 code to write a part of his engine. I don't know if Copy-Paste was used or just transformed Rybka's code with another writing style and even more ideas, but the behavior of these 2 engines in many positions is identical.

Can anyone find 2 engines that have in just one position(not mate or 0.00 positions) identical evaluations and a pattern in the plies?
That would offer some disprove of the above evidence.

[Steve B]

That must be because there are more chess engines than chess computers these days. It must be to do with deflation.

No, there is only one engine! all the others are just clones...


regards,
Robert

while we are on the topic of the Phantom Force..


tell me Robert

as a collector..does the ELO really matter to you at all in your decision to purchase the Phantom Robot or is strength the all-deciding factor?(given that the price is very reasonable)

1700 ELO Regards
Steve

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

That must be because there are more chess engines than chess computers these days. It must be to do with deflation.

No, there is only one engine! all the others are just clones...


regards,
Robert

while we are on the topic of the Phantom Force..


tell me Robert

as a collector..does the ELO really matter to you at all in your decision to purchase the Phantom Robot or is strength the all-deciding factor?(given that the price is very reasonable)

1700 ELO Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,
The strength is not a topic here in my opinion

[Robert Weck]

while we are on the topic of the Phantom Force..


tell me Robert

as a collector..does the ELO really matter to you at all in your decision to purchase the Phantom Robot or is strength the all-deciding factor?(given that the price is very reasonable)

not really; most important for me is, that it has a NEW program and not just a slightly modified DTCC/Alexandra or Grandmaster program!
(or at least, it should be much improved; >50 ELO)


On the other hand, i think, that for good, innovative hardware (ok, PF is not the first robot, but the first newly developed since a long time) or/and precious looking boards (as Citrine) the program should be as strong as possible (such a computer should have "flagship"-function for the manufacturer)

Who would want a Ferrari with a VW Beetle engine? Everybody would laugh about that!

But for me, anything NEW above 1800 ELO would be ok, to buy a PF!


hopeful regards,
Robert

[Steve B]

while we are on the topic of the Phantom Force..


tell me Robert

as a collector..does the ELO really matter to you at all in your decision to purchase the Phantom Robot or is strength the all-deciding factor?(given that the price is very reasonable)

not really; most important for me is, that it has a NEW program and not just a slightly modified DTCC/Alexandra or Grandmaster program!
(or at least, it should be much improved; >50 ELO)


On the other hand, i think, that for good, innovative hardware (ok, PF is not the first robot, but the first newly developed since a long time) or/and precious looking boards (as Citrine) the program should be as strong as possible (such a computer should have "flagship"-function for the manufacturer)

Who would want a Ferrari with a VW Beetle engine? Everybody would laugh about that!

But for me, anything NEW above 1800 ELO would be ok, to buy a PF!


hopeful regards,
Robert

thats a reasonable approach i think
you want a new program even if the elo is not so strong and i can see good logic to this

for many though the strength is all important which i think is the wrong approach to collecting

if i have a look at the Selective Search lists i see no more then 50 computers that were ever released for sale with an elo above 2000(including clones) and above 2200 not even 20

so if i went chiefly by strength i would have not even 50 computers let alone 450 and i would be missing out on many wonderful computers with different features,quirks,interesting differences etc etc

Collecting Philosophy Regards
Steve

[Robert Weck]

for many though the strength is all important which i think is the wrong approach to collecting

if i would go for strength, i would take Arena, a PC-engine and a nice (non-electronical!) board with pieces of my choice, and that's it!

No DGT-board; i see no real advantages, that are worth 400 Euro!


just my opinion regards,
Robert

[Steve B]

for many though the strength is all important which i think is the wrong approach to collecting

if i would go for strength, i would take Arena, a PC-engine and a nice (non-electronical!) board with pieces of my choice, and that's it!

No DGT-board; i see no real advantages, that are worth 400 Euro!


just my opinion regards,
Robert

well i also have a DGT Board and XL clock
i rarely use it of course

i got it as a gift so i cannot exactly throw it away but i would have no problem whatsoever

Selling It Regards
Steve