Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 00:40:13 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 22:24:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 09, 2004 at 21:37:26, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>On January 09, 2004 at 20:48:58, Ed Trice wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2004 at 20:42:50, Michel Langeveld wrote: >>> >>>>Did you only use the bitboard code and SEE for making Gothic Vortex? >>> >>>You cannot download Crafty and just change a few parameters and have a fully >>>working Gothic Vortex program. >>> >>>But, some entire source files were ported directly for use in the program. >>> >>>I did ask Dr. Hyatt about this, of coursse. >> >>So Dr Hyatt does not need to modify crafty to play Gothic chess - you seem to >>have done it already for him ! >>Will you be making this open source like crafty ? ;) >> >>Ofcourse I know the answer - but the gall to use crafty code almost completely >>and then charge others for "$1 license" !!! > >I also do not like the $1 license but I think that the only person that can >complain if there is a problem is Hyatt and not you. > Hmm , if you see injustice getting done , I think from your above response , you would keep quiet ? - ok , in that case your opinion is fair. I dont - This person charges $1 , then he gets into long arguements with Bob , challenges him to write a Gothic Chess version , insults someone like him who has worked for 20+ years in this feild by giving him a "$1 free license for 1 year" , and in end , I see that most of this gothic chess program is crafty anyway ! Bob Hyatt has every right to complain - that does not mean I cant. Did I touch a raw nerve here ? Ah well , tscp author Tom Kerigham also might not have had any problems also I guess ? ;) >> >>The earlier impression I got from reading your request was - you are "borrowing" >>some small pieces which are tough for you to develop - looks like it was not >>using crafty bits to write your program , but modifying it superficially to play >>your new variant. >>No wonder you make claims about its playing strength ! > >Your impression is not relevant. >The limit between borrowing some pieces of Crafty and modifying Crafty is not >clear. Indeed - for you changing a few comments , chaning a few variables , etc would mean new program. Most others consider the ideas behind the program , its tuned paramenters - not the syntax , indentation , and other irrelevent things as the crux of the program. You take those , you have taken the core of the program ! > >I believe that the main reason that Hyatt gave permission is the fact that it is >not a chess playing program. > ???? You dont consider what as a "not a chess playing program." here ?? crafty ? , this ersion that Ed Trice has released ? Ed Trice's program is also a chess playing program - albeit a new variant that he has created. >It is clear that you need to change the move generator and a lot of things when >you have 8*10 board. Indeed you have to - we are not talking about anything very stupid here. But basic ideas are the same. If I take crafty , sit with a few GMs , handtune the eval parameters better , add a few more patterns - then I guess in your definition , it is a new program. No in most of the people here - it is crafty , just another modification of it. I think lots of people already do similar stuff like this - Mike Byrne , etc Please be more clear in your posts before jumping the gun :) Best Regards Mridul > >Uri
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.