Author: rasjid chan
Date: 19:31:49 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2005 at 05:56:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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: > " start of definiton:- Tueschen's definition of chessprogram clone ============================================= ... end of definition. " Your definition is correct and clear. The only problem is there is no commentary on when it starts and when the definition ends ... when what comes after is no more part of the definition. Best Regards Rasjid Chan >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.