Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: About Fafis...

Author: Mridul Muralidharan

Date: 05:25:02 05/29/05

Go up one level in this thread

On May 28, 2005 at 12:29:33, GŁnther Simon wrote:

>On May 28, 2005 at 12:20:00, Vladimir Elin wrote:
>>Hi Alex,
>>I think that reason for you to use only engines with open sources and delete
>>all engines were you can see words : alpha, beta, prunning and many many etc.
>Vladimir that is really a dumb post after all...
>>You idea that Patriot 2.0 is clone - full absurd.

Is it really such a dumb post ? I am not sure - whenever someone mentions
"clone" , I am skeptical - inspite of the number of clones that are discovered.
I prefer to give the author the benifit of doubt - a genourously large benifit
at that.

Nothing is opensource programs is a "secret" , I mean - even if they were not
opensource , the amateur (and definitely professional) authors will have arrived
(or already have) at them independently : by expiriments or through available
docs. I dont really see any ground breaking code or idea in any of the
opensource engines today - all are straight forward implementations of the
standard theory.

Most , if not all , clone accusations show as "proof" something really dumb -
like string search , result in a single position , behaviour of a parser (which
is _not_ part of the engine as such people !) , etc - maybe these are the only
possible ways to identify clones (I am not sure - and as I have posted before ,
I dont really care much) , but based on such flimsy grounds people should not
accuse others.
When you accuse a program as a clone - you are also maligning the reputation of
the author : which is the more serious thing IMHO.

What Vladimir Elin is hinting at is that (I think) , people (usually non-chess
engine programmers who know quiet little about the programming aspects) see
something/anything strange (in their eyes) and cry wolf.
Like a string search which returns strings - which might be what is defined in
the pgn spec , or a binary search which returns data match (whcih might be de to
a generated parser for pgn handling for book) , etc !

Ofcourse wachful people are always needs to see the hints which will lead to the
identification of many clones , but IMO we need a better way to decide how to
identify clones.

The current process seems to be : 1) Accuse 2) Flame 3) Author defends 4)
mudslinging 5) Nasty posts - brining the author's whole family history to the
ground 6) Challenge (to show source) 7) If 6 accepted , cleared , else branded
as clone.
  I dont know about others, but no I am never going to send my source code to
someone I dont personally trust - even if the rest of the computer chess
community might seem to.
Not everyone knows what the non-opensource guys are doing in their code : and
personally I do many a stupid things , but I might have something interesting
too :)

So why have opensource engines ? - different question anyway , we wont discuss
that since it is largely an authors decision.

We should try to promote the number of amateur engines so that as many people as
possible should enter this field - not discourage people. (both within
reasonable limits ofcourse)


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.