Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:53:38 01/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 1999 at 03:31:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Johan Havegheer on January 23, 1999 at 18:16:45: > >>>This is wrong. The version of bionic that playedin the first 1/2 of the >>>Dutch tournament matched crafty _exactly_. Every move of every game except >>>for 1 or 2. > >>>But that isn't nearly so important as one key thing they 'get'... that being >>>a parallel search that no one else has. Which gives them a 2x-3x speed boost >>>over everyone else. So to say 'it isn't crafty' is baloney. A few eval changes >>>don't make a new program. I've also pointed out that anybody that takes the >>>crafty source is _required_ to make that source public as part of the freeware >>>project. They've never done this. IE I'd like to see a source version >>>released that will _exactly_ match the Dutch tourney moves. _then_ we could >>>_know_ what is different. They were going to do this, supposedly. But nothing >>>has been done. > >>There !!! never !!! has been a change in the program version during the dutch >>championship. Hans gived me a copy of Bionic on the last day and i did some >>tests to prove that Bionic IS CERTAINLY different from Crafty. >>I took the first 15 positions off the CCC III tests. (downloaded from the >>rebel site). Here are the results : > >>AMD-K6-2-300 64Mb SDRAM >>3min/move >> >> Bionic Impakt Crafty 15.20 >>Testnr Move Score Depth Move Score Depth >> >>1 Bd3 0,57 11 Re1 0,31 11 >>2 Nd4 0,21 11 Re3 -0,06 11 >>3 Qc2 -0,07 10 Qc2 -0,25 10 >>4 Bh6 0,07 11 Bh6 0,22 12 >>5 dxe6 -0,54 11 Kh1 -0,66 11 >>6 h5 -1,78 11 h5 -1,56 11 >>7 ?Kh7 0,56 10 ?Kh7 0,53 10 >>8 ?b5 -0,54 11 ?b5 -0,24 10 >>9 ?Qe7 0,95 11 ?Qe7 0,57 12 >>10 ?Ne5 -0,32 10 ?Re8 0,07 10 >>11 d5 0,64 10 Bg5 0,48 9 >>12 e6 0,56 12 e6 0,51 11 >>13 Ng3 -1,62 9 Ne7+ -1,51 10 >>14 Nxf5! -0,58 11 Rxe8+ -1,81 10 >>15 Ne5 0,54 11 b3 0,28 11 > >>Bionic plays another move than Crafty in 8 testes on 15 !!!! >>Sorry for my rather weak English. >> >>Johan Havegheer (Bionic test team) > > >Hans, Johan you have my sympathy whatever Bob says in defence. >Fact is Crafty source code is freeware. Freeware is freeware. If Bob >(or others) don't like the negative side effects of freeware then don't >release it as freeware. > >If people pick Crafty's sources, make their own changes and give >the program an own name then that's perfectly legal. Adding all >kind of demands to the license agreement are not necessarily >binding. > baloney on two points. Freeware licenses have stood up in court already. The GPL from project GNU is quite well-known. for the second point, try to enter a 'slightly modified copy of a freeware program' into an ACM or WCCC event. That won't happen. The rules have forbid this since the very early days. >As far as I understand Dutch law it is perfectly legal to pick >Crafty's source-code, make changes, build an own GUI and >sell it. This might differ from country to country I don't know. > >The only thing Bob has a right to demand is that it should be >forbidden to release a 100% exact copy of the freeware >sources and give it a new name and/or sell it. > >I don't understand all the fuss about this topic. Many programs >are based on the GNU freeware sources. Never saw discussions >like this. Why is the GNU status different than Crafty status? Maybe if you would enter Rebel in one of these tournaments, you might 'change your tune'. Ie would you _really_ want to play today's crafty at a 3:1 time handicap? I don't think so. But you would have to if the tournament allows multiple cpus like the Dutch event. And you'd be sitting there playing a program with a very good chance of beating you, with that program using something the authors probably don't even understand how it works (the parallel search). Seem reasonable, now? I never intended to release something that would be used to bash other programs in this way.. > >As for tournaments, Crafty or GNU clones should be allowed >from the juridical point of view as simple as that. I can imagine >organizers might decide otherwise but they are taking a risk >concerning the juridical point of view. Freeware is freeware. In >the Crafty / GNU case all ideas behind the program are made >public so everybody is allowed to use it. You can not publish >your ideas in the newspaper and say, "I don't want you to >use it". > Sure you can. You can publish "anything" and still prevent it from being taken 'word for word'. I believe that would be called plagarism? Taking the 'ideas' from crafty was the point of releasing it. _not_ taking 99% of the code, adding a few eval changes, and then using that in a computer chess event. IE the WCCC in Paderborn is not going to allow such an entry... The rules have _always_ not allowed such, and they have tightened them this year to be sure this doesn't get out of control... I don't mind anybody doing anything to crafty, and using it however they want, but it does _not_ seem fair to take something no one else has, with _zero_ effort (the parallel search) and then use that to roll over programs that have a lot of time invested by the programmers working on them. That's what started this discussion _during_ the tournament.. and that has been my point ever since. I don't think anyone minds playing "crafty" in a tournament. But they should object to having 5 in the same event. Because the odds are that 'crafty' is going to win having 5 chances out of N. That I call 'unfair' odds. Which was the same reason many protested "gunda-1' in the Jakarta event. >Kind regards, > >Ed
This page took 0.01 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.