Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:15:10 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 15:57:10, William H Rogers wrote: >Let me answer for Dan if I may. It is true that Dan looked at an earlier version >of List but that does not mean it is the same one that played in the tournement. >I don't understand why people don't get that fact. >Bill I understand that Dan looked at a previous version. But Dan just said, "Looking at the code, this author has no need to copy someone else's work to create excellence." I guess it's possible that after creating such excellent code the author then choose to return to Crafty and co-opt its code, but it seems to me that it's rediculous to continue to put the burden of proof on the author once you know he derived an independent version. Does this guy have to jump through flaming hoops to prove his innocence? 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.