Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:56:28 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 03:25:13, José Carlos wrote: >let me try to understand the topic. Will you provide a good definition of >"clone"? > >>Please remain what you are, an artist with the typical naivety. I like it. > > Thanks for the compliments. > > José C. Seems so easy to me. But I'm not a chessprogrammer either. But from my understanding of science I would answer that this way: Tueschen's definition of chessprogram clone ============================================= If a new program in computerchess is based either on one single other program or content-wise a copy but carefully re-written and re-designed for cheating purposes, or based on _several_ models with only little own creativity for new features or successful designing of known features, in other words with a very long list of thanks in the readme file, then we could conclude that this "new" program is NOT an outstanding and new creation but only a copy, a clone of something that is already known and existing. From the practice side it seems obvious that if a "new" program in computerchess is the virtual "leader" in rankings after one year or something the like, then we have almost by definition a clone and not a personal and independent creation of a single individual. Of course other constellations of the production are thinkable so that then this aspect of shortness in history becomes obsolete. It's almost impossible to prove such a clone status with certidude in juridically relevant sense. Simply because code can be re-written and re-composed for cheating purposes. Here only experts know what is possible. It seems also clear that the given insinuation is wrong that also CRAFTY then could be called a clone, simply because the history of the development of that program is carefully recorded for the public like no other program. The difference can also be seen (above all other aspects) in the risk for the programming chief compared with his academic job. But this only as a little footnote not as a seriously meant aspect. ----- With this definition I want to share a spontaneous thought with the resident experts. I know that I'm not a computerchess programming expert and therefore the real difficulties of such a definition could be well situated somewhere I am totally ignorant of. Also I wanted to make the point that we here are not discussing copyright or juridical details. We should better see the problem from its creativity side and of the fairness in sports. Rolf
This page took 0.01 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.