Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 12:12:58 01/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 1999 at 14:03:19, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 27, 1999 at 11:38:57, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On January 27, 1999 at 11:28:09, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 1999 at 22:10:13, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>Yours is just a mere verbal difference. Good words againts bad words. "Using >>>>published algos" etc cannot be that different to "taking someone else...". These >>>>last words sound bad, but refers to the same fact. If you take a published algo >>>>you are taking from someone else, if you take from someone else, you are using >>>>published algos, etc.... >>>>Fernando >>>> >>>> >>> >>>The difference is that in one case, you are using the ideas and rewriting them. >>>In the other case, you are copying verbatim the words (i.e. code) and only >>>making modifications. You are an author. How can you not understand this >>>difference? It's the difference between referenced material and plagiarized >>>material. >>> >>>KarinsDad >> >>My friend: >>You must think i am a perfect idiot if you really believe I do not understand >>that difference. > >No, I do not believe that anyone is perfect. But I've noticed that you keep >improving. :) Yes, I try hard. Obviously to get some support from who is already there, in the summit of it, is tremendously exciting.. :-)) >> The problem is that you have not proved that this difference is >>THAT difference. How you can know that the authors os Bionic just copyed all? > >I only know what was posted here by Albrecht and what is posted on the web page. >Both of these indicate that some portion of the code is Crafty code, for >example, the search engine. If the authors have stated it, why must I prove it? But that was not the point, my friend. Nobody discussed such an evident fact. The question was and is IF that portion was enough to say "this is just a bloody clone..." >>Did you examine the source code? What you mean with making "only" modifications? > >Fair enough. Re-read the statement, but drop the word only. It makes no real >difference to the point I was trying to get across. > >>What do you know about the reach of that "only" modifications? IF that is the >>case, if it is just a cosmetic refurbishing, I am with you. But please, give >>some data to prove it is only that. In fact is what I have been asking from the >>beginning > >Again, fair enough. My position is merely based off of what I have read on the >web page and what Albrecht himself has posted. I refer you to that information >as the basis for my position. I will not attempt to prove anything since I, like >the rest of us, have no source code with which to make assertations beyond what >has been presented. My disclaimer on my position is that if the information that >I have read is in error or incorrect, I may change my position. If you have >information from these locations or any other which supports a position of >Bionic Impakt not using Crafty source, I will be glad to listen. Well, all the problem resides precisely in the fact not enough informaton is available. We had been both you and me and all people here debating on the ground of speculations. > >As for thinking that it was cosmetic refurbishing, I do not. I think Albrecht >and his team put a lot of work into their code. They changed the evaluation >functions to correspond to Bionic's evaluator and they put in a pre-evaluator >(which I also have planned for my program). From what I have read, they have >done a tremendous amount of work, however, (also from what I have read), they >did not drastically modify the search engine or the SMP code. Since they did not >get Robert's permission, this implies (and is obviously not proof of anything) >that a copywrite infringement was made. Wait: a) If they put a lot of effort and changed evaluation functions,. I would say that's enough to talk of another program b) Yes, they kept the search function, but -am not sure- that fraction could be considered as a kind of general tool as alfa-beta, prunning, etc are. Specially would be so if the author, as he has did, made it available. That is my only point. No proof. No >solid facts. Just an opinion based on what I have read. > >As always Fernando, it's been a pleasure taking the opposing point of view :) Without oposition, no discussion; without discussion, not necesity of CCC. Without CCC, we will get bore. From spaceship Cosmos II fernando > >KarinsDad > >>Greetings >>fernando >>> >>> >>>[snip]
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.