Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Slater Wold

Date: 12:10:30 02/15/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2004 at 13:53:33, Bob Durrett wrote:

>On February 15, 2004 at 13:24:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>I understood from the winboard forum that Bob considers DanChess as a crafty
>>clone and the question is what is the definition of a clone.
>>
>>I remember from slater's post in this forum that if most of the code is
>>different you cannot win in court by complaining that it is a clone.
>>
>>I understood from Dann's post that only 30% of the code of DanChess is
>>similiar(that does not mean the same as Crafty).
>>
>>Dann Corbit posted in the winboard forum the SEE function of Danchess that is
>>similiar to Crafty.
>>I wonder if it is really the main reason that Bob considers Danchess as a clone
>>or only one of the reasons.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Can you patent or copyright an algorithm????

Patents cost, on average, about $10k.

No one is ever going to patent an algorithm for chess, unless it actually solves
the game.

>Bob D.



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.