Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:08:16 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2005 at 15:41:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >This was coming from the thread Re: A Critic against Public Burning of young >Talents in Computerchess > +++++++++++++++++++++ > >On May 12, 2005 at 10:51:38, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 12, 2005 at 10:40:30, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 12, 2005 at 06:16:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 11, 2005 at 22:29:40, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>Enjoy life and just read what you want to read and enjoy the people that you you >>>>>like to be with. Life is too short for anything else. >>>> >>>>Mike, you are a very wise man. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Best, >>>>> >>>>>Michael >>>>> >>>>>ps Thank you and Martin for Arena - the best free chess product made thus far >>>>>in this century! >>>> >>>>I must say this to the benefit of science. Nobody ever has researched the source >>>>code of ARENA. >>> >>>Not so. I have gone through the string table for Arena. It is written in >>>Delphi, so it could port to UNIX using Kylix. >>>Here is the list of dlls and binaries referenced: >>>\pifmgr.dll >>>\system32\pifmgr.dll >>>_isdel.exe >>>accuclck.exe >>>advapi32.dll >>>arena.exe >>>Av_BookBuilder.exe >>>BLDINDEX.exe >>>BookBuilder.exe >>>BookEdit.exe >>>cb3dviewer.exe >>>comctl32.dll >>>comdlg32.dll >>>CTL3D32.DLL >>>DGTEBDLL.DLL >>>dos4gw.exe >>>ELOStat.exe >>>explorer.exe >>>gdi32.dll >>>gnuchesr.exe >>>GradualTest.exe >>>HolmesCfg.exe >>>IMM32.DLL >>>install.exe >>>InstallCC.exe >>>kernel32.dll >>>notepad.exe >>>oleaut32.dll >>>PSAPI.dll >>>regedit.exe /s >>>Restarter.exe >>>RICHED32.DLL >>>setup.exe >>>shell32.dll >>>Speedtest\gtest.exe >>>start MSINFO32.exe >>>tail.exe >>>timeseal.exe >>>timestamp.exe >>>uninstall.exe >>>user32.dll >>>vcltest3.dll >>>winboard.exe >>>winmm.dll >>>winmsd.exe >>>wsock32.dll >>> >>> >>>You can see all the custom controls and the formats and pretty much everything >>>about the organization. Arena does not contain amazing new algorithms or >>>anything like that. What Arena represents is thousands and thousands of >>>man-hours of incredibly tedious GUI work. > > >Dann, I have some questions for you. > >The "tools" above - they could be used, and it wasn't "cloning" in your view. > >Now I have a missing part in my understanding as non-expert for programming. Do >you say (with others or all) that say - someone has a final product before his >eyes (a product from the leading company) that IF you are clever enough to write >down several thousands of lines in your own style (how could that be if >programming is using a specific language? What is the important thing in >programming? Knowing the language and then describe the orders or is it >important to solve thousands of problems to express what the program should do? >Excuses to all for my naive questions, but they are important for me to >understand where abilities reign or where simple cloning is taking place.) > >I understood you until now as if the mere expressing of code is already a >creative performance. However I say that if I look at ChessBase 8 or 9 and ask >myself, well, how should I state my code so that the result is similar to >ChessBase, is it still authentical performance? I doubt that. IMO the >autheticity of a creative performance would ONLY exist IF the whole presentation >would be DIFFERENT to that of ChessBase 8 or 9. But if in the end all features >and menues are the same (with meaningless changes by chance) then it's a clone >IMO. > >Could you explain exactly where I may be wrong in the above? Or anybody else >please. I can only say that I almost smell that something is totally wrong in >the debates. And therefore I was already in opposition in the famous LIST case. >It's ridiculous in my eyes if a program is so good, much better than the model, >to then search for similarities (sic!) which couldn't explain why then the new >product is much better than its model. How important is it then to debate a >possible "cloning"? As Fabien expressed, we all base on former models and it >makes no sense to force people to always invent new the old models. I think that there is a difference between interface and chess playing program. Interface may do the same things without being a clone. Chess programming is more creative task. People have different ideas about evaluation and it is not clear that one idea is better than other ideas. Fruit is strong but it is not clear that everything in it is good. If somebody start by copying the evaluation of fruit then he skips learning and understanding process. I think that people should start from some evaluation that they think about and later learn from open source what to change. If you start from open source you skip effort of understanding and I do not think that it is good for future progress. > >Could you try to explain where it becomes a crime or fraud or where it's simply >a learning process on the base of former creative products? I do not see what happened with patriot as a learning process. People may modify fruit/toga and improve it without understanding most of the code and it seems to me that it is what happened with patriot(there are cases of output that has no logical reason(the selective depth of patriot is always based on some strange formula based on fruit even when there are no moves to select). 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.