Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:20:52 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2004 at 03:40:13, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >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. I do not think that Ed trice insulted Bob Hyatt. I think that you insult Ed trice for no reason. > >Did I touch a raw nerve here ? >Ah well , tscp author Tom Kerigham also might not have had any problems also I >guess ? ;) No Movei did not start from tscp. I started from a legal move generator(something that tscp never had). Movei also never had similiar evaluation to tscp. > >>> >>>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. No but it is impossible to write a program that plays 8*10 game with different pieces by only changing a few varaibles. >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 ! tuned parameters? evaluation of Crafty is for chess and not for a different game so nothing is tuned in crafty for a different game. > >> >>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. No The game is not chess because the board is different and there are new pieces. > >>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. It is a different case because it is a chess playing 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 Mike Byrne said that he is not a programmer and he does not know to change Crafty to a ghotic playing program. It is not something easy to do it. I do not think that you have the right to speak for most people. The only problem that I see is trying to protect an opening position by a patent and I think that it is wrong even if without taking parts from crafty. I do not see problems of taking parts from crafty when it is allowed by the author. I know the part that is written in main.c but Bob hyatt made it clear that this part was not intended for game of 8*10 with other pieces. 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.