Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:45:03 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 18:19:04, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On February 15, 2004 at 17:33:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 15, 2004 at 17:28:30, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2004 at 17:19:03, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>Hm, so you think that the code of his swap fonction is to similar to the one of >>>>crafty or do you mind that somebody uses the idea of SEE from crafty in his >>>>program? I don't no the code of Danchess, so I cannot judge. >>>> >>>>But I think if somebody uses the idea, a swap function looks basically like a >>>>swap function. Like an alpha-beta looks like an alpha-beta. >>>>Determine attackers, determine defenders, sort the bunch of them add up >>>>swap_scores and minimax thme in the end. >>> >>>that seems to be the point why it *is* a clone. i have a SEE in my program too. >>>it does about that what you describe above, but yet it will look completely >>>different from all other functions that people have made for this purpose. for >>>example, i use 3 different functions, one called SEE that is called in the >>>beginning, which calls SEE_attack which calls SEE_defend which again calls >>>SEE_attack and so on until nothing is left. that's what happens when someone >>>like me thinks about this for a while and makes his *own* implementation. it >>>will not have a single line of code that is identical to crafty. most probably >>>the crafty implementation is much better than mine. oh well, at least i will >>>never have to deal with clone accusations ;-) >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >>> >> >>That is the point the apparent "non-programmers" are not getting. 10 people can >>write the same algorithm and the 10 codes will look nothing alike... even with >>100 different authors you would not find two duplicates... There are way too >>many ways to code the same algorithm. I use a for, you use a while. I use >>inc/dec (++/--) you don't. I use arrays, you don't. The differences go on and >>on and on, just like that damned rabbit... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>As far as the eval is concerned, I agree that this is private property. >>>> >>>>regards >>>>Andy > >What I (and from the posts a lot of others) were not getting is that you meant >copy&paste with: > >"I think too much was taken directly from the crafty source to call this an >original program." > >I can see clearly now the rain has gone. >Please do not forget that most of the people following the discussion here have >not seen the code. > >regards >Andy That's the fault of the people that bring up a private conversation in public, and then fail to give some context for the discussion. In the private emails of the debate, I have been _very_ clear as to what I meant, and you are _exactly_ correct. "copy/paste" is the problem...
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.