Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:17:10 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 12:01:50, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On May 28, 2001 at 11:04:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 28, 2001 at 02:22:46, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>You can justify almost anything with this. For instance: An individual could >>>"justify" cheating, since the other cheaters would otherwise have an unfair >>>advantage. Silly. >>> >>>It is sufficient to acknowledge that *everything* we do is built upon the work >>>of others. As long as acknowledge this and pay them their due, you've already >>>done everthing you are ethically required to do. >>> >>>With the the Nalimov TBs, you only need to ask his permission, give credit where >>>credit is due and to say "thank you". >> >>Out of everything you said, that last sentence leaves me the most "chilled". >> >>IE, in my case, I got code from Eugene, he has access to my code in return. >>We _both_ gain, as if he decides to write a new chess engine, he has samples >>for lots of current ideas. Should I decide to write yet another TB generator, >>I have samples from him for current ideas. >> >>In the case of the commercial programs, _what_ does he get in return? >> >>zilch... >> >>That has _always_ been a bothersome point to me... > > >I wouldn't be surprised if the commercials sent him free copies of the latest >version of their program to him all the time. Only a lunatic would have the >cheek to charge him for a copy. That's not the same thing at all. He provides source code, ideas, explanations in the comments, etc. Giving him a copy of a commercial engine doesn't give him anything like what he gave them. IE he gets a "black box" that he can play chess against. The swap sees extremely one-sided to me...
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.