Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 07:13:28 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 09:52:01, martin fierz wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 09:35:37, Steven Edwards wrote: >>1. The proposed fingerprinting scheme is not intended to detect cloning of code >>that is not immediately related to move selection (why bother?), so criticisms >>on that basis are irrelevent. > >if i throw out crafty's evaluation and stick in my own evaluation, i will pass >your test. do you really think that such an engine should be allowed to play in >a computer tournament? Well, Crafty's Search() and Eval() may be more closely interconnected than what might be first apparent. If your own evaluation is significantly different than Crafty's and gives different results, then one of two cases will occur: 1. The program plays the same or worse than Crafty, so why bother entering? 2. The program plays better than Crafty, so it is sufficiently different because of skillful modifications, and one would assume that the skill could also be applied to other parts of the program to make it different in other aspects. So I'd say that it was a different program. Remember that Crafty in its earliest days likely played moves very similar to those made by NWU Chess 4.x; does this make it or later Craftys (or secondary derivatives) clones? It's a question of motivation. If a cloner would make the large amount of effort to successfully avoid fingerprint detection, why wouldn't he instead spend that effort on doing original work?
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.