Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:04:18 06/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2005 at 13:39:11, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On June 07, 2005 at 13:20:25, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 07, 2005 at 12:49:59, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 2005 at 12:33:55, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On June 07, 2005 at 12:02:34, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 07, 2005 at 04:18:51, Aaron Boonshoft wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Does anyone know of any "open source" chess programs? (That is chess programs >>>>>>where you can actually view the program's source code.) And if so, can you tell >>>>>>me where to find them. (What website can they be found at?) Also, do you have >>>>>>any first or second hand knowledge about them. (Did you find them to work as >>>>>>described by the website?) Thanks! - Aaron >>>>> >>>>>Looking into foreign source codes to 'understand' chess programming is >>>>>absolutely counter productive. It will kill your own ideas before you have had a >>>>>chance to get known to them. > >>>>I am guessing that every one who has written a world class chess program has >>>>looked at the source code of other programs. >>> >>>a) I am not talking of code snippets but of complete program sources, >> >>The code must be available to look at the snippet. > >If you are personally communicating to an interested programmer, you could >send him code snippets to explain a special point of the discussion. > >That chance indeed does not exist if you spread whole sources world wide >and anonymously without having the chance to know the benefiters. If this is the atmosphere fostered by competitive chess programming, then competition should be abandoned. >>>b) if somebody would eat from a forbitten fruit that is no legitiation for >>> others to spread such things or even more from such forbidden fruits, >> >>The open source does not excuse illegitimate use. > >The illegitimity starts when everybody anonymously could take part on such >sources, without ever having proved to be able to contribute his appropriate >part. I thing there has to be a qualification and identification process. I am not adverse to such a process. I think some of the professional programs might be nervous about it, because their livlihood depends on it. >>>c) my Smirf program does not yet have world class level, I prosume, but for >>> me it is more important, that it is my own genuine creation, >> >>As it is for any chess programmer. The ones who take someone else's engine, and >>twist a screw, then stamp their name on it are criminals. > >Well of course, but why give even anonymous people the chance to? Anything can be put to good use or illegitmate use. I can use a hammer to build a house or to hit someone over the head. The hammer manufacturer is not contributing to murder by making hammers. >>>d) there always is the possibility to read about experiences of chess >>> programmers in books and reports using human language; used computer >>> language written sources instead seem to be directed more for a computer >>> as a target than for a human brain. >> >>I submit that there is a place for both the articles and the code. > >I cannot see a need for publishing complete and moreover compilable sources. You have a lack of foresight then. It is a valuable service to the open source community. It is not a lot more difficult to go from a paper to source of your own. But it is often easier and better to look at what someone else did. >>>>>But such 'donations' are a good base for patchworking together new clones and >>>>>for to cheat in our brainsport computer chess. >>> >>>>The ACM must be the most evil orgainization in the world. Let's lump in GNU and >>>>Sourceforge. >>> >>>Do not mix open legitime source projects with this discussion. >> >>Every chess program that is open source is a legitimate open source project. > >Well, here I disagree. If there is a sports character attached to that project, >as it is with computer chess programs, there is a big problem. It has to be also >open, WHO has ever used the sources, and what he has CONTRIBUTED to the project. The spirit of open source is sharing information. There is no reason to fear it. If new open source ideas render your old ideas obsolete, then you can adopt the new ideas as well, unless they are under patent. >>>Open source is >>>ok, where protocols or new application platforms would be created. But if there >>>is a competition between solutions, open source is corrupting brain sports. >> >>It is not the open source that corrupts. It requires corrupt people to cause >>the corruption. > >That is, why in Germany not everybody is allowed to own a weapon. He must prove >a legitime interest first and needs a personal permittance. I own a firearm, and I will never kill anyone with it. >>>And I find it legitime to point out this view, when it is for others to point >>>to such sources already misused for cloning and cheating. >> >>Inevitably, they are caught and disgraced. > >As is told here in germany: even a murderer will not hang in Nuernberg, it is >than, that they have caught him. I would submit that even in the case of a firearms manufacturer, when they create legitimate sporing weapons like shotguns and long rifles, they have done nothing wrong. If a criminal uses one to perform a robbery, then he has done the bad thing and not the firearm maker.
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.