Author: James Robertson
Date: 13:49:10 02/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 1999 at 15:04:15, Will Singleton wrote: >On February 15, 1999 at 14:32:16, James Robertson wrote: > >>On February 15, 1999 at 11:57:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 1999 at 10:13:49, Jeff Anderson wrote: >>> >>>>It doesn't send the 'Hello from Crafty x.xx' at the beginning does it? >>>>Jeff >>>> >>>>On February 15, 1999 at 07:56:53, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 15, 1999 at 05:43:19, Jeff Anderson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I've read at the Gambitsoft site that a new chess engine called Bionic has >>>>>>source that may be almost completely copied from Crafty. I have heard nothing >>>>>>about this on CCC. Can give me the whole of the story? >>>>> >>>>>The whole story is more like a full history. You arrived too late. You are like >>>>>a guy saying " I have heard nothing about Titanic, what happened to it?" Well, >>>>>this is too long to reduce, but maybe we can say that a long discussion followod >>>>>Bionic appearance as much some people thought it was not very ethical to win a >>>>>tournament with a program that supposedly is scarcely something more than Crafty >>>>>and made use of a tehcnique that gave to it an enourmous advantage. From there >>>>>followed a weually loing thread about what should be a parameter to stablish a >>>>>difference between a program and his father-program. And so and so. >>>>>Take a look at post posted 3 to 4 weeks ago. >>>>>fernando >>> >>>Just wait a few days. I'll give you _another_ eye-popping revelation. There >>>is _another_ new program that appears to be a nearly line-for-line copy of >>>crafty. It is very strong, and the people testing it have _no idea_ that it >>>really is crafty. Who? wait for another day as I have some more comparisons >>>to do. But I can tell you that many of the character strings in this engine >>>have simply been converted to "German". But the engine is the same, the book >>>is the same, the hashing is the same, the learning files are the same, the >>>binary book format is the same, the constant bitmap patters (pre-initialized by >>>the compiler) are the same, the procedure names are the same, and the list goes >>>on. >>> >>>Really sad news, IMHO... >>> >>>But it seems some folks have zero morals... >> >>I would suggest you stop releasing the source to Crafty. >> >>I must admit that a lot of what I learned about chess engines came from Crafty >>and EXchess (i.e. the Winboard interrupt code; in my entire life I would never >>have thought of that), but most things can be done as well or better by >>descriptions. I.e., my entire rotated bitboard engine was based on Tim Foden's >>emails in English (not C++) before I ever downloaded Crafty source.... and I am >>much, much happier to have my *own* bitboard engine that I understand inside and >>out than one copied from Crafty.... >> >>If there must be free source for beginners, use EXchess as it is very easy to >>understand and is weak enough to probably not be renamed and entered into a >>WMCCC. >> >>James > >I don't know about that, EXchess is getting pretty strong! :) True; it is no pansy. :) > >But regarding your main point, this has been discussed before, and it's of >course up to Bob to make that decision. However, the cat is out of the bag as >far as the source goes, in it's present form it will be stronger that any >amateur program for the near term. So restricting it will have little effect >(the effects having already occurred). > >Long term, though, it would be a good thing to take it private. > >Will I agree. James
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.