according vas-chessbase formula: (any engine that its a threat for the rybka throne is a clone) the critter 0.9 maybe is a clone !!!!
from ccc forum: notice that moderators did nothing to stop that defamation !!!!!! (on purpose ofcourse)
"wow, how come this huge strength improvements?
critter grows up in the last years rapidly, then i wondor how he doing this, i think it is impossible to doing such improvements in a short time, may he working very hard on critter or he is cheating and cloning from other sources.
OR he can MAGIC !?
i am doing this hobby, but have only reached about 2700 elo , in this way i am now a little demotivated from computerchess"
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 69&t=36867
i think vas-chessbase-talkchess going to lowest level to destroy any progress in chess engine arena. the upcoming new houdini 1.5 critter
deep saros etc will make them terribly maniacs, so beware programers!!
vas strikes again?
Re: vas strikes again?
I think it is unfair to determine Vas and/or ChessBase to be the primordial source of this post, or too that the (current) TalkChess moderation is much at fault. Given that the poster permits a number of loose terms in the phrase "or he is cheating and cloning from other sources", I might have asked what exactly is meant by "cheating" or "cloning" (of what? "ideas", "code", maybe pruning margins?), neither of which (I presume) apply to Critter in my sense of those terms.
Re: vas strikes again?
ok to be sure go to rybka forum and write: "is the critter 0.9 a clone?"
i can sure u that nobody there will delete this topic ,also very soon new free engines better than R4 will come and i wonder for how long
this censorship will remain. is it a rybka forum? ok deal but there is a topic called "computer chess" there
cant one "?" cover the purpose of this topic, he just tried to spread doubts to anyone with other way,also lately the ccc forum became
"nervous" vs free engines so iam asking now cos of houdini 1.5? critter? deep saros? i wonder who will stop the massive wave of free engines,
(better than rybka soon)the dark age is a past, nothing can hide for a long time.
ps. have u noticed what i wrote "vas strike again ?" question mark also
i can sure u that nobody there will delete this topic ,also very soon new free engines better than R4 will come and i wonder for how long
this censorship will remain. is it a rybka forum? ok deal but there is a topic called "computer chess" there
cant one "?" cover the purpose of this topic, he just tried to spread doubts to anyone with other way,also lately the ccc forum became
"nervous" vs free engines so iam asking now cos of houdini 1.5? critter? deep saros? i wonder who will stop the massive wave of free engines,
(better than rybka soon)the dark age is a past, nothing can hide for a long time.
ps. have u noticed what i wrote "vas strike again ?" question mark also
Re: vas strikes again?
Yes, I did notice the question mark, though I still find the question to be a bit of a stretch. Part of my leaving the Rybka forum was due to the "two classes" of censorship [most of it topic-based, but also some of it "person-based", depending on if one was a "Rybka team" member or something].
If such a "Is Critter 0.9 a clone?" question were asked in the Rybka forum, I would first (in the style of many in the forum) ask "a clone of what? of itself?
", and then ask it there was any evidence, probably briefly peruse the executable, and if there was still any energy in the debate, note that their were no real similarities (in contrast to the cases where nothing more than the UCI id author line is changed). If the discussion continued, and they censored my asking for further evidence, I'd probably leave. 
[I also suspect there would be a fair amount of level-headed commentators, though perhaps an occasional one would stir up trouble -- the topic would probably remain, though I suspect: "Is Rybka 1.0 a Fruit 2.1 re-write?" would not].
If such a "Is Critter 0.9 a clone?" question were asked in the Rybka forum, I would first (in the style of many in the forum) ask "a clone of what? of itself?
", and then ask it there was any evidence, probably briefly peruse the executable, and if there was still any energy in the debate, note that their were no real similarities (in contrast to the cases where nothing more than the UCI id author line is changed). If the discussion continued, and they censored my asking for further evidence, I'd probably leave. [I also suspect there would be a fair amount of level-headed commentators, though perhaps an occasional one would stir up trouble -- the topic would probably remain, though I suspect: "Is Rybka 1.0 a Fruit 2.1 re-write?" would not].