Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:39:49 11/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 17:43:07, jefkaan wrote: >On November 28, 2003 at 16:18:04, Roberto Nerici wrote: > >>I can't see any risk in someone seeing List's code who wasn't meant to see > >agree, but.. an accusation that some new program is a 'crafty clone' >is an old story, and an easy accusation, maybe as most people >know Crafty. >In fact there are many open source chess programs, and some >of them are quite good quality; any skilled programmer could >have a look at such sources, and to the theory of chess >programming, and come up with a new program. > >But then he should ofcourse be honest about it, >especially in the beginning, or when participating >in tournaments. After a while, when trying to advance >the program further the program would either be deviating >more and more from the original sources, thus becoming >less of a 'clone', or the programmer would even make >some giant step backwards and decide to start all over >again, i.e. starting from scratch. Either way >its a difficult and timeconsuming process. > >So if a program isnt completely made from scratch, >well so what, i would say, no need to reinvent >the alfa/beta routines yourself, you know :) >And no need for a witch hunt, which anyway >the programmer could easily avoid by providing >more openness about the sources and/or show >parts of it to an independent and uncommercial >intermediate person, like eg. prof Heinz. > >But in the case of well-established programs >as Tiger, Shredder, Quest/Fritz, Junior, etc. >well personally i dont see why they should be >obliged to show their source codes (or even part >of it, to an intermediary); their playing strength >by itself already is enough reason to participate >as independent program, isnt it ? No Law should be equal to all. I see no reason to allow Fransh morsh not to give his source code to Heinz and not to allow other programmers to do the same. I have no problem with a law that force the programmers to give their source code to someone that is trusted not to use it but using this law only for part of the programmers is not fair. > >ok not all of you may agree with my view, >but its currently how i see it and quite >frankly i find the whole thing about disqualification >(of List) a bit overdone (even although the >decision appears to be right) Nowadays >opening books are anyway getting more >and more important, compared to >simple little engines :))))))))))))) I do not know what is the problem in list but I read that the problem was also in list4.60 and list4.60 has no book so I do not see how it can be book cloning. 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.