Author: Mathieu Pagé
Date: 06:58:05 02/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 18:38:43, John Merlino wrote: >I'm not trying to start a brutally long thread here, but I'm just curious about >how people feel about a particularly touchy subject -- clones. What, in your >mind, would lead you to the conclusion that an engine is a clone? > >Let's forget trying to find ways to PROVE that a clone is a clone; I'm just >trying to define one. For the sake of argument, assume that the author of this >engine in question tells you exactly what he did and did not do, and you must >decide whether to call it a clone or not. > >Here are some hypothetical questions to start the debate: > >If the author took Crafty and completely rewrote the evaluation code and nothing >else, would it be a clone? > >How about if the author rewrote the evaluation code and search algorithm only, >but left the hashing code, et. al.? > >How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for the evaluation? > >How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for Crafty's evaluation of >passed pawns? > >I think you can see where I'm driving. Obviously, many engine authors have >studied Crafty and other engines whose authors have graciously provided their >source code. But, for an engine to not be considered a clone, does it have to be >absolutely 100% the work of the author? (Forget about Nalimov's EGTB probing >code and any other code that can be used with permission). IMO a clone is a chess engine created with parts (100%, 50%, 3% does not mater) of an other engine _WITOUT_ the permission of the author of the original engine. As an exemple, Crafty SE of Myke is not, IMHO, a clone of craty, it's just a particular version of it, and, as a mather of fact it would be allowed to enter in a tournament (WCCC or CCT) if both Mike and Robert were cited as author (and both agree). Mathieu.
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.