Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 10:43:49 03/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2004 at 20:48:38, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 02, 2004 at 18:31:54, Uri Blass wrote: >[snip] >>>In general, this is not done. There are a large number of TSCP clones, where >>>the TSCP heritage is never mentioned. There are several GnuChess clones where >>>the heritage is never mentioned. >> >>Do you know it by getting the source code of the program or by different >>investigation? > >By extrapolation. For instance, when a program says "bye" when it exits it is >usually a TSCP clone. A string table examination will generally verify the >initial guess. Similarly for other engines. > >>What is the reason that you do not tell the public which engines are tscp or >>gnuchess clones when the author does not give credit to the original authors? > >Because I have no solid proof. I will be very, very reluctant to accuse someone >of something unless I am completely sure of it. Or I have sent an email to the >offending author and am waiting for their final response. > >There are also programs where the author mentions in passing that their engine >is based upon the code of some other engine. A scan of the CCC archives will >turn up several. I consider these as "already known." I fact the sole purpose of TSCP was education. "Look, this is the guts of a chess program in 1000 lines, everyone can do it. Take it and improve it". And it still is highly succesful as such. I think there is a BIG difference between basing upon TSCP, which was written in 3 days and hardly more than a framework to learn from, and basing upon Crafty which is a fully developed state of the art chess program with > 5 years work in it. With GNU somewhere in the middle. "Basing" on Crafty and not mentioning it stinks, IMO. Not many will have a problem with doing so with TSCP. Bas.
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.