Author: Günther Simon
Date: 10:54:07 06/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2005 at 13:44:19, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >On June 18, 2005 at 13:22:58, Gabor Szots wrote: > >>On June 18, 2005 at 13:11:27, Bryan Hofmann wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2005 at 11:30:05, Gabor Szots wrote: >>> >>>>An excerpt from the readme of the new Fruit: >>>> >>>> "added PV-node extensions (this is from Toga), e.g. extending >>>> recaptures only at PV nodes. Not sure if these extensions help; if >>>> they do, we all need to recognise Thomas Gaksch's contribution to >>>> the community!" >>>> >>>>In my opinion it does not matter whether they help. In my interpretation Fabien >>>>uses something Thomas invented or something from his code. The same what Thomas >>>>did (only to much less extent). >>>>This adds to the confusion and controversion. What do we have now: two engines >>>>or two personalities? Or more? Fruit 2.1 based on Toga II based on Fruit 2.0? >>>>Ridiculous. The whole GPL is ridiculous. >>> >>> >>>Why, do you want to follow the teachings of only one mind. GPL uses the concept >>>that more then one brain is better the a single brain. >> >>Does GPL also use the concept that one code is better than starting from >>scratch? >> > >Reinventing the wheel from scratch makes no sense. > >>> >>>Would you call Crafty this? Crafty uses EGTB's like many other programs and that >>>chunk of code was written by Nalimov. >>> >> >>Did Nalimov write that code for his own fun only or also for use in chess >>programs? >> > >As far as I know Fabien and Thomas wrote their code for fun as there is no >charge for the program. There are other snippets of code in Crafty like the >Futility pruning that were not written by Hyatt yet I have not seen you complain >about this... > >>> >>>>Maybe Fabien intended to implement these PV-node extensions anyway. Thomas did >>>>it _for him_ (!) and now Fabien has to refer to Thomas otherwise he would be a >>>>thief! >>>> >>>>I can only recommend to all authors not to publish their source code. At least >>>>not if their engine plays too well. Maybe it is too late. >>> >>>There are and have been several chess engines that were written with more then >>>one individual involved. I fail to see any reasoning behind this statement. >>> >> >>Those individuals deliberately chose one another for a joint venture. > >And that is the whole point of GPL if you would just take the time to understand >it. Well, IMHO the last sentence seems to be a downhill pervertion ... If GPL would be really copy and paste without even trying to understand anything, something must be wrong. Guenther
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.