Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 03:17:48 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 05:00:49, martin fierz wrote: >just a short question: > >if i rip assembler stuff like popcount and firstone from the crafty source, but >the rest of my program is entirely different, am i doing something wrong? > >if i use the kogge-stone floodfill algorithms posted here by steffan westcott, >am i doing something wrong? > >how much foreign code is allowed? > >cheers > martin > >PS: i use a table-based popcount, not crafty's assembly code. i use a modified >version of crafty's lastone. i don't use steffan's floodfill code, but i plan to >give it a try. This gets even murkier when you consider copying ideas (and pseudo code), even if the implementing code is different. I would never have re-invented alpha beta, hash tables etc etc. I have also implemented (sometimes modified forms of) ideas discussed here, on Bruce's web site, described in Bob's notes to Crafty and anything else I could find. Eugene's endgame tablebase code is included directly. As is code from elsewhere, such as the GNUchess/Crafty polling the input stuff in Linux, random number code off the net etc. Polling etc might not affect my program's performance at chess, but the endgame tables certainly do. I suggest that all chess programs are derivative to some extent; and that most of us are travelling a well trodden path. The question I suppose is where the boundaries lie. Having to produce your code for inspection seems entirely reasonable. Hopefully this would be required only if there are reasonable grounds for believing foul play. ICGA have yet to reveal these reasons in the case of List – at least on their web site, where I could not even find the letter referred to below. I wait for wiser heads than mine to rule on this one .... Bob, Bruce.
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.