Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:36:47 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2004 at 21:26:10, Ed Trice wrote: > >>But this is exactly the point we have been arguing over and over with >>programming a capablanca chess engine. > > >Incorrect. > >Selling a Capablanca Chess set is not the same as designing a program. You have >to DESCRIBE THE METHOD OF PLAY when you sell the game. > >They cannot ship with the Capa set the text "Oh, by the way, put the chancellor >on e1, th Archbishop on g1, etc...' and then let the players play the game of >Gothic Chess. > >They cannot discuss playing the game of Capablanca Chess. I think it is exactly the same. Whether I make some wooden pieces and a board and sells it with full documentation on how to play Capablanca chess, or whether I write a program that loads the Capablanca chess as default and never mentions Gothic should be the same. I really do not see a difference, it's the complete digital analog. >>It seems you've been saying such an engine with a position setup feature would >>be illegal, or did I misunderstand that? > >There is more to a chess engine than a setup feature. The king safety code in >Capablanca Chess is very, very different from Gothic Chess. > >If the program has internal heuristics to deal with Gothic patterns, it is in >violation of the patent. The whole point of the CapaGNU Modified match was to >demonstrate that a Capa program, designed only to play Capa's chess, would get >pulverized by one with Gothic-specific algorithms. This hypothetical program would have no knowledge of Gothic, it would be a >If a program has been written to allow for playing the game of Gothic Chess, >then it has infringed upon the patent if there is no license. What you're saying here is completely different, this is saying that my Capablanca chess engine cannot have a setup feature. Assuming logic and law agrees, then this would also imply it's not legal to produce a wooden Capablanca chess set, and this would be invalid according to you as "claiming a superset of intellectual property from a subset" isn't possible. >>>>If it is, then how come Gothic isn't infringing on Capablanca in the same way? > >1. Because Capablanca's chess is public domain. >2. Because the METHOD OF PLAYING Gothic Chess is not even close to Capa's chess. > > >> >>It is the same game, just with different initial positions. >> > >The playability of the game is very sensitive to the initial position. I think >Capa's Chess is a forced white win. I won my first 32 games of Capa chess I >played with white. > >The i-pawn is undefended and there are 3 diagonal pieces in a row gunning at it: >Archbishop on c1, Bishop on d1, Queen on e1. > >That changes everything. Try patent a differn't opening position in chess, say one of the illigal FRC positions. That should be a brand new idea. Now start claiming that all chessbase products which have the facility to setup your position are infringing on your patent. It would be the same situation, you're only lucky Capablanca chess isn't very popular so nobody really cares what you claim. -S. >> >>Your subgame is also reachable under capablanca chess, capablanca chess >>pre-existed gothic so your subgame cannot be patented, just the opening >>position. > >My subgame is not patented. It is reachable from my patented starting position. >You cannot claim a superset of intellectual property from a subset.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.