Author: Roberto Nerici
Date: 00:42:28 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 03:25:47, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 02:46:49, Hristo wrote: > >>What is the question: >>Is this program an original work? > >In my opinion, that should not be the question. I think the goal is to prevent >someone from stealing someone else's expression of their ideas and claiming them >as their own, not to make absolutely sure that not a single line of code was >borrowed from another program. [snip] >So basically I think what is important is that someone doesn't just take Crafty >and make a few changes (like changing the name) and then calling it their own >program and enter tournaments. The idea of using test positions and comparing >the results should be good enough to detect those weak attempts at cheating. If >someone modifies it enough so that it plays different moves most of the time (as >often as any other program), then they have probably done some significant work, >and we can give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that isn't the best >theoretical solution, but in reality it is probably a very good solution since >it doesn't border on paranoia and is not invasive to the programmers. It is a difficult area and I don't think there is going to be a really good solution. I agree that Steven's suggestion could detect the case where someone takes Crafty and changes just the name, but I disagree that that is useful. Although I think the test position system wouldn't be a great deal of work, IMHO even that amount of effort wouldn't be justified by only catching the most blatent cheats. What I find confusing is that Steven says that he is making this proposal in response to the Crafty/List type issue, yet I can't see how it addresses it. Roberto/.
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.