Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:44:53 05/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2002 at 11:30:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>On May 02, 2002 at 11:15:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>Is it 'my' book then?
>
>Sorry for the rhetorical question, I'll restate.
>
>>>So if you for example play 1000 of automated games in one opening against
>>>Rebel, and create a book from that, thats ok.
>
>I would assume it is. I'll assume it as a basic right to compile an
>opening book from a set of games from other players for the rest of
>this discussion.
>
>>>But a book is a lot more. It is a collection of openings, the weight of
>>>different lines, the ? and !s.
>
>Now, the problem is that there is an equivalence between the book and a
>large enough set of games played by a program with that book. Given the
>latter, I can determine the former. Saying I can do one and not the other
>makes no sense.
>
>>>A lot of people seem to fail to understand the difference between holding
>>>copyright over an opening and a book. You obviously cant copyright an opening.
>
>I would think the same, i.e. an opening cannot be copyrighted. But Jeroen
>is claiming exactly that in this thread, namely that people should not
>be allowed to copy ('steal') lines from the Rebel book.
>
>--
>GCP
He says that you have the right to buy books, analyze the theory lines and use
your analysis in the book(this is what he did if I understand correctly).
I see no difference between it and buying Rebel,analyze the lines in rebel's
book and decide based on analysis which lines are good to copy to your book.
I see no reason to assume that Rebel's book should be more protected than other
books that are not chess software.
Uri
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.