Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 09:20:01 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 04:22:08, Tony Werten wrote: >Point is that when there are 7, there seems to be a valid reason to have some >very very little doubt. In this case the author has to to provide the >sourcecode. Failing to do so got him kicked out, not the suspiscion, not the >complainer, not the question wether or not List is a Crafty clone. > >It would be quite ironic if List was a crafty clone. For me as a dutchman the >name Crafty has a feeling of "cunning" and List has a meaning of "cunning trick" Tony, Of course you will only have a small number if you only limit it to the 7 that List had in common with Crafty. If I compare with all of the Crafty files, I get: GNU Chess 13 Exchess 7 Sjeng 5 Gerbil 3 TSCP 3 Arasan 3 Resp 3 Faile 3 Phalanx 3 Surely GNU Chess is a Crafty clone! Or maybe GNU Chess borrowed file names from Crafty (or vice versa). My point is that it is possible that some ancient version of a program was based upon Crafty and the only remaining evidence is the similar file names. Or maybe the author had read the source of Crafty and those file names were fresh in his mind when creating his program, so he named them the same. I would expect something shocking to take such action as the ICGA did. Something like 18 out of 22 same file names, and it would have to include some of the less generic names: crafty.c, enprise.c, nexte.c, nextr.c, preeval.c, searchmp.c, searchr.c, testepd.c, validate.c, x86.c. Having files named main.c, search.c, make.c, eval.c and so on is not evidence of anything other than a program that has a main function, that searches, that makes moves, and that evaluates positions, just like any chess program.
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.