Author: jefkaan
Date: 07:03:38 11/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 2003 at 08:20:37, Uri Blass wrote: >If a program is using the same book as Crafty but the search and evaluation is >original then it has parts of crafty but the program is not a crafty clone >based on my understanding. correct ok, i looked up the Icga letter again; and indeed, they dont mention 'clone' but 'substantial parts of Crafty code' (that obviously means more than only book). Reason i mentioned 'clone' was having read that somewhere on this list i presume. Ok, lets say 'substantial parts, in other words, an accusation that List is based on Crafty. Such suspicions are in disagreement with the observation of Dan Corbit that List doesnt resemble Crafty at all. Ofcourse, in theory the Icga still can be right when List would have some small and irrelevant parts of Crafty (or other open sources programs), but thats not my point. My point is that in the past other programs like Bionic, Ruffian, etc. also were accused of being a Crafty 'clone' (you know by who). And this case again looks a bit like that; thats why i think we are entitled to hear a bit more about this issue and how it started. best regards, jef
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.