Author: Dan Homan
Date: 06:29:09 02/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 1999 at 08:28:23, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi dan: >Reading you thread with Dgeordge something appears to me with some clarity: the >issue is not the use or not of Crafty code, BUT the the existence or lack of >transparece about how that use was made out. Then, you can even compete with a >clone of Crafty where just a line was changed and win a prize and it will be OK >IF you say "i just changed a line of code ant this is it". And if other changes >were made BUT esentially is Crafty, the guy should send to Bob and all people >concerned his new ideas and say "look, doing this, putting this, substracting >this, our beloved Crafty get this advantage". So many people has done. And >finally, if ever a guy thinks he has gone long beyond Crafty on the ground of >Crafty source, he should say "Hey, I have here something that finally is >different and new and if enybody doubt about it, let a third part to take a look >into the bowells, provided he has promised under legal enformcement not to make >public the new things he can see there". And then the guy can even become >commercial. I believe at first glance that this fits with your concerns about >morality. Glasnot is the answer to a good deal of problem,s so I think. >Fernando I agree, I think that honesty is the key. The only place I differ with you is tournaments. I think that big tournaments (such as the Dutch Open, WMCCC, etc...) which require original author participation should have only one version of crafty (or any other program, for that matter) allowed. Modified versions (as long as they are clearly labeled as such) should be fine for most kinds of private tournaments, ICS play, and testing. - Dan
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.