Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: guilty until probed the opposite

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 16:08:05 05/28/05

Go up one level in this thread


On May 28, 2005 at 18:38:51, Cesar Contreras wrote:

>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 agree that it is important to know the name of the other engines.

>
>- 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.

I also agree.

>
>- 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.

No Crafty is not the center of knowledge.

>
>- 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.

No
I do not agree that the code of generating moves is a little part.
The data structure that is used for the move generator is used also for other
things.

>- 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?

Not important.
It is illegal to do it.

>- 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?

I am not afraid of it.
I am quiet sure that people will never find big similiarities like they found in
Fafis or Partiot to some free source code.

Movei has a lot of original datastructure that was not copied from another
program so I do not believe that it can show the same behaviour like another
program.

probaility is so small that it is practically 0.

Uri



This page took 0.05 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.