Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Review of ALEXS by Larry Kaufman

Author: Djordje Vidanovic

Date: 19:05:37 02/16/99

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 1999 at 20:54:20, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On February 16, 1999 at 19:36:13, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Maybe Bionic or Voyager have 99% of components from Crafty, but if the behaviour
>>is not like Crafty, then is not Crafty. A chess program is for playing chess and
>>so matters of style and strenght are the important ones, no how was done, how
>>many new or olds pieces has, etc.
>
><snip>
>
>This seems very wrong.  For example, I can take Crafty source and add *ONLY TWO
>LINES* and make it play completely differently, yet still very strongly.  But, I
>CAN NOT claim the program to be my own.  Even though you wouldn't be able to
>tell it was Crafty by looking at the games it played, it still would be Crafty.
>
>As Dann said, if I take one of your articles and change a few words, it is still
>YOUR article, even if nobody would be able to tell you wrote it.
>
>Jeremiah

At first glance what you just said does seem to be true, and it really is true,
but only applied to _static_ entities, such as articles, statues, hanging
gardens, stuffed birds, etc.  However, when you deal with _dynamic_ entities,
where one little thing can change the behaviour of the _whole system_ (one thing
leading to another) then your line of reasoning is not correct.  Thus, you may
have an engineer researching a prototype for 50 yrs and not finding the right
solution whereupon someone else comes along and by working on it for a couple of
years finds the little something that was missing, implements this little
something (watch out, all the works are there, the internal structure was
already present) and the prototype machine is working as it should have been in
the first place.  (Now, all this is very much a "Gedanken" experiment so
beware.)  Who do we credit with the prototype, the guy who set up the rig that
was not working, or not working the way it should have, or the new guy?  What
I've just said is terrible, I know, but then all analogies limp, don't they,
they are all wobbly -- just as your analogy with that hypothetical article of
Fernando's is...

There is an old maxim -- Ex nihilo nihil fit.  "There is nothing new under the
sun" -- Bob Hyatt is only a link in a very long chain of general human thought,
and he came up with something new with reference to something else that he had
built on.  The authors of Bionic did the same, and they acknowledged their
intellectual debt as is proper.  But, bear in mind that they ***competed*** in
an official tourney -- the Dutch Open.  Voyager, about which there has been so
talk, never took part in an official tourney, it was in the works, so to speak.
And then someone (there is only a limited number of people who could have done
that!) mustered up his morals and courage to give a copy of a completely
unfinished product, a program in the making, caught in the midst of tuning and
testing and trying out, with the bare essentials of the code implemented, a
program that would never have been used publicly as it was. That particular copy
had never taken part in an official tourney, nor did the author plan to do so.
What's the fuss then?  The author is, according to my knowledge, still working
on Voyager. It is not the old, uneven and Crafty-resembling version anymore.  I
could not reproduce more than 20 or so percent of PVs corresponding to Crafty
with Voyager 3.08a specially designed for the Fritz 5.32 interface... Voyager is
turning into a very interesting program, surely using some borrowed ideas, but
Bob did the same thing building up on the ideas he may have got while perusing
the source code of Chess 4.x or Coco, or whatever.  I know of at least two
programs that have stemmed from the Gnuchess source which are rightly considered
as full-fledged original programs now since they really bear no resemblence to
Gnu *anymore*. But they did at first...  And so the world goes on, and layers of
tradition settle one upon another, but one does not, and, indeed, should not
always start anew!  That is called, in its widest sense, civilisation.

Regards,
Djordje



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.