Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: question about definition of clones

Author: Murano Lima

Date: 05:07:08 08/22/05

Go up one level in this thread


2)I am against copying without understanding.
3)usually clones are based on copying without understanding so I am against
them (Uri)

Understanding does not make the difference.
A clone based on good understanding
(no matter how many questions you had to ask to aquire it...)
is even worse than the simple "silly" clone.
The last one is easy to find.
From an ethical point of view I dont see a difference.

I think you misunderstand "Copy and paste": you think it is only about
lines of code. It is clearly about ideas, too.

Of course there is always a problem: Where does (partial) cloning begin?
But the difference between getting inspired and copying is easy, in general.
From what you tell, there is no doubt, that you dont feel inspired.

You say: Transferring fruit to pascal is not easy,
so if I would do it I would be a hero, not a cloner.
(yes, you did not say hero, I intentionally misunderstood)
Again I dont see the point. It depends on your abilities
and has nothing to do with the matter of cloning.
It does not matter, too, if u replace any for by a while or similar
to be able to say: I did not copy and paste, and look,
how well I understand what I am doing, I am clever.

Peter



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.