Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:24:32 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 15:34:51, Roger D Davis wrote: >On December 01, 2003 at 13:01:21, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I sent a letter to David Levy > >Dan, > >Could you amplify your perspective? You sounded absolutely certain in the >Winboard forum, but now you say only that you doubt it. I will be very surprised if it turns out that List is a crafty clone. >1. Has something come to light that moderated your opinion? I thought I should rephrase it because I have no sure proof for my opinion. >2. What is the strongest evidence that List is NOT a clone, in your opinion? I have seen [some of the] code for List. List is not a bitboard engine like crafty. Looking at the code, this author has no need to copy someone else's work to create excellence. Since the basic underlying structures are different, it seems to me a miniscule probability that List started out as crafty. >3. What is the strongest EVIDENCE that it is? Someone did a function string search though a list binary and found that many of the module names match those of crafty (from what I gather). It is not inconceivable that list has used some crafty code (e.g. possibly the book reader or something). But if List is simply a modified crafty, then I'll eat my hat. If crafty code has been used, then there should be proper attributions and permissions. Eventually, I think Mr. Reul will clarify. >Thanks, > >Roger
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.