Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:07:11 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 15:52:35, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >On February 15, 2004 at 15:07:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >> >> >>Here we disagree. I see nothing wrong with starting from some known point, so >>long as you eventually end up with nothing but your own code... Otherwise you >>will spend a long time writing all the support stuff, and many lose interest >>before they get far enough along to actually see their creation play any real >>chess... >> >>IE this is where "C" came from. Changes to "B". Etc... Let's suppose that somehere in the process, your algorithms looked considerably similar to the ones that you started with. Then you let people use your program. Someone noticed that some data arrays in your program were the same as in his. A big brew-ha-ha starts. Apparently the crime committed is that enough changes were not committed yet to make it unrecognizable. I do not think that this is the path that DanChess did. Rather, he took ideas from crafty and grafted the algorithms into his program. In doing so, he had to make changes to each idea that he adopted. This is somehow seen as a great crime, but the other not? Puzzling to me. It is the copy/replace scheme that seems criminal to me. And the adoption of ideas that seems totally harmless.
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.