Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:00:54 08/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2005 at 23:33:55, Cesar Contreras wrote: >I think current "clone" definition it's about implementation, because there are >many algoritms and ideas in common between several engines. > >If your implementation will be diferent, then -in my opinion- it will not be >valid to label it clone. > >Now i have a some tougths: > >After implementing ideas or algoritms of another engine, then there is a chance >they both engines behave the same in some situations. I mean those situations >for what the original idea/algorithm taken from another engine was maded for >(ie. King safety). If there are found to be "too many similarities", then there >can be some troubles. As you can see "too many" it's pretty undefined. > >Also, there are ideas about the implementation. ie. if you look another engine >and realice there is a better implementation of something than your own >implementation, then i think it's controversial if it's rigth to or not to take >that implementation idea. > >"clone" definition it's pretty undefined, people will give diferent definitions. > >The more i think about it, the less i understand. I agree that it is undefined so it is important to know opinion of people about it. Basically the problem is copying code and not copying algorithm so I think that if the data structure is copied then it is illegal to use it in tournaments. I discuss the opposite case when the date structure is not copied but the evaluation including the evaluation weights is the same. The main problem is that inspite of copying no data structure it is possible to say that it is illegal to use it because evaluation weights are copied. Uri
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.