Author: José Carlos
Date: 13:25:50 08/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
> Ok, I see your point. Then things are really hard to accuse somebody of
>cloning because it depends on what was in the mind of the suspect cloner when he
>wrote the code. It also means that exact code doesn't imply cloning at all
>because the programmer could have figured out that he exactly needs those lines
>of code, and type them exactly the same way they were in other program.
> I'll use a little example: a long time ago I studied Pepito. I saw that his
>last line of eval() was something like
>
> eval -= (eval % 3);
>
> I understood the idea immediately and I thought it could be a good idea to
>produce more cutoffs with losing too much information. I decided to try the
^^^^
I meant _without_ of course.
>idea. How could I implement it? Not many ways to choose. I just had to use the
>same exact line or just discard it.
> I tried, and it seemed to be a tiny improvement.
> Months later (note that I programmed Averno about one hour per week, and it's
>been a year or so since the last time I did it), I figured out possible
>improvement. I tried (from memory):
>
> if (abs(eval) >= 30)
> {
> if (abs(eval) >= 150)
> eval -= (eval % 5);
> else
> eval -= (eval %3);
> }
>
> The idea was that when the advantage is bigger, less precision is needed.
> It seemed to work.
> Now I ask myself: is this an unfair use of open source? I don't think so, but
>I'm not sure anymore...
>
> José C.
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.