Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: To Ed Trice: Free legal advice (prior art for engine)

Author: Keith Evans

Date: 10:34:10 01/10/04

Go up one level in this thread


On January 10, 2004 at 02:29:24, Ed Trice wrote:

>
>>
>>You should be aware of the following link:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:wtangel%40well.sf.ca.us&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=29724%40well.sf.ca.us&rnum=17
>>
>>In my opinion the post and program establishes prior art for programs (engine +
>>primitive GUI) which can play Capablanca chess, and which can use commands to
>>edit the starting position, and can indeed save and restore games and starting
>>positions.
>
>Capablanca Chess and Gothic Chess are different.
>
>There is no prior art for Gothic Chess because I was the first person to
>separate the King and the Queen.
>
>Capablanca has 3 diagonal pieces all in a row: Arcbishop, Bishop, and Queen.
>They are all gunning in the vicinity of the undefended i-pawn, which means
>castles kingside is suicide.
>
>None of these gross imbalances exist in Gothic Chess.
>
>THEY ARE DIFFERENT,  ok, as different as night is from day.
>
>I  played Capablanca's chess half a dozen times a day for over a year, looking
>for the way to draw as black that Capa found.
>
>There is none.

The point is that as far as I can tell, an engine which plays capablanca's chess
is no different than an engine that plays gothic chess. Therefore I don't
understand why engines would need a license. After all there is a decade old
engine that demonstrates this.



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.