Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:31:33 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 19:39:22, James Long wrote: >On January 25, 1999 at 12:36:51, Ren Wu wrote: > >>Here are my thoughts about this > >And here are mine... :-) > >> >>I think the only solution is that Bob stop release the new version of Crafty >>source. Instead, he write some text file explain what he have done in the new >>version. In other words, Bob present his new ideas in english, rather in C. > > >Open source is a double edged sword. In theory it's a beautiful idea. >In practice it get's abused. On one hand, it's a way to share >ideas. In the end, the entire community should benefit. Inevitably, >others will cash in on everybody else's efforts. > >This is something I've thought long and hard about. I got hooked on computer >chess just over two years ago. I wrote my first program after reading >Levy's book "How Computers Play Chess." It was a disaster. My second >program was much better. I studied Hyatt's code (and still do), and >implemented a lot of it. I've also studied Jon Dart's, Don Cross's, GNU, >and probably a couple others I've long since forgotten. I study them, >but I never do the old "cut and paste." > >It would be easy for me *now* to say that source code shouldn't be >provided, but I'd be a hypocrite for it. Let's be honest here: >how many "chess programmers" have _never_ looked at another's source >code for ideas? And why not? Isn't that what it's there for? >It's much easier (for me) to grasp an idea when I can see the >proper implentation.... something not well-known but worth knowing about times past. Around 1970 or so, after working on a chess program for 2 years, I picked up the phone and called Richard Greenblat at MIT and talked with him. He sent me a copy of his source (DEC-10 assembly language for the most part so it was hard to read). I later called Ed Kozdrowicki (from the 'COKO' chess program team which was he and Dennis Cooper) and Ed also sent me a copy of his source, this time FORTRAN and about 70,000 lines of it. I benefitted immensely, because I found the static exchange algorithm I still use today (modified for bitmaps of course, but the minimaxing code at the end was right out of COKO). That is the _why_ I chose to release mine... because I thought it would be beneficial for everyone to have a reference point like that. I'm not hyperventilating about the bionic issue, the only thing I don't like is that something I released to help new chess addicts to develop a program ended up instead being used to discourage them. That is the issue, for me. > >Looking for ideas is one thing. Theft is quite another. > >I believe I've read Hyatt respond to the question of why he >supplies source code before: to give something back to computer >chess, which has given him so much over the last 30+ yrs. >(Did I get that right Hyatt?) He has certainly done that. >It's unfortunate that a few thieves here and there could potentially >end this. I doubt I will 'stop'. Too old and stubborn now. :) > >Why do you oppose open source? Because you don't want to see >a fellow programmer get robbed, or because that's just one more >program that's better than yours? Again, it's a double edged >sword. > >I, for one, am eternally grateful to those who have provided source. >I think it takes a lot of "unselfishness." Hopefully one day >I will come up with an idea or two that will benefit others. >If I do, I'll return the favor. that is the point of amateur chess programming. The commercial guys aren't going to participate, but enough of us will to make it work in spite of them... > >Just my two cents... > >--- >James > > > > >> >>Personally i don't like the idea that crafty come with source code. I agree that >>source code does provide quite a lot of info, but for *real* programmers, one or >>two lines english is enough to get the idea. >> >>I don't like to let my program play any clones, either in the server or in a >>tournament. I may play some crafties if they say it is a crafty running on a >>different hardware, but i will not play those program who claim it is not crafty >>because they change the compiler switch, add/delete 1 line of code, or whatever. >> >>The flood of crafties is one of the main reason kill my interests to play at >>chess server fics. >> >>Maybe Bob will think twice about this. Other fellow programmers please let us >>know your opinion. >> >>Ren. >>On January 25, 1999 at 08:44:05, Steve Maughan wrote: >> >>>After the huge thread regarding Crafty and Bionic can I suggest a possible >>>solution. >>> >>>How about Dr Hyatt retaining copyright on _part_ of the Crafty code. For >>>example the MakeMove UnMakeMove section. This allows budding programmers to >>>probe the _ideas_ behind Crafty eg Null Move, QSearch etc and incorporate them >>>into their own programs. However, since it would be tough to completely rewrite >>>only the MakeMove, UnMakeMove, it stops them using the entire code as the basis >>>of another program. >>> >>>I must say the idea of dozens of Crafty clones at the next World Championship is >>>a daunting thought. I think it would ruine the event. >>> >>>Just a suggestion. >>> >>>What do you all think! >>> >>>Steve Maughan
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.