Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: guilty until probed the opposite

Author: Cesar Contreras

Date: 15:38:51 05/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


To all of you:

It seems to me like a witch hunting, i don't mean it's a bad thing to search for
justice, what i mean it's that many are taking conclusions too quickly. I don't
say "Fafis it's not a clone", but if it is, the evidence it's not conclusive.

In the other hand, i see many efford (people/hours) in order to probe fafis it's
a clone ... i hope there are at least some people thinking in some ways to probe
it is not a clone... that can be called justice.

"guilty until probed the opposite" it's just plain bad (some are taking out
fafis from their tournaments). Why don't wait a little more?  why the hurry?


Some things i like to add:

- I'ts important to know the names of the other 3 engines  that made the same
moves as crafty in the draw game. The others must be clones also or this
evidence it's irrelevant.

- I'ts important to know the name of the other engine that made the same move as
crafty in the mate on one. The other must be a clone also or this evidence it's
irrelevant.

- Crafty it's a center of knowledge in chess programming, so having programs
that behave the same in some aspects or some positions don't seem to me that
suspictious.

- The strings "captured a king" and "feature rejected by xboard" are not a good
evidence.
- The code needed to generate moves, parse FEN it's a little part of a chess
program, you can't say it's a clone based on that little parts.
- The virus thing can happen to all we engine authors, we are confident in our
antivirus, but virus are first then antivirus, and some virus simply desactivate
the antivirus. I think some pleople here just closing their mind, i can imagine
a loot of ways the virus can get into the exe  (worm mutation, worm
modification, bad information from antivirus companies). You can suspect that
Rafael append the worm himself, but you can't be for sure.

As an engine author myself i think (IMHO) that the evidence it's not conclusive,
i can imagine it's not dificult to find similar behaviors on some aspects on
very diferent engines.

With all my respect i think you must be more carefull when you release this kind
of information, it must be released when you have enought evidence to probe it.
Maybe you are rigth and Fafis it is a clone, but maybe not and one person it's
damaged.

To the engine authors:

- How many % of code make an engine a clone?
- How many lines of code make an engine a clone?
- How many % of fafis it's crafty code?
- then how do you know it's a clone?
- suposing you got conclusive evidence tell that Move generator and FEN parser
it's crafty code? how mutch % of the code it is?
- How do you feel if your engine it's declared a clone when you know it's not?
You know you took some ideas from here or from there, but you know it's not a
clone?
- What it's the way to clean your name?
- does Releasing your VERY OWN source code cleans your name? (but it's yours,
you decide when to release it or not)
- but you MUST release YOUR CODE or you must GIVE IT to somebody you don't even
know if you want to continue in your hobby. :-(




This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.