Author: James Long
Date: 16:39:22 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 12:36:51, Ren Wu wrote: >Here are my thoughts about this And here are mine... :-) > >I think the only solution is that Bob stop release the new version of Crafty >source. Instead, he write some text file explain what he have done in the new >version. In other words, Bob present his new ideas in english, rather in C. Open source is a double edged sword. In theory it's a beautiful idea. In practice it get's abused. On one hand, it's a way to share ideas. In the end, the entire community should benefit. Inevitably, others will cash in on everybody else's efforts. This is something I've thought long and hard about. I got hooked on computer chess just over two years ago. I wrote my first program after reading Levy's book "How Computers Play Chess." It was a disaster. My second program was much better. I studied Hyatt's code (and still do), and implemented a lot of it. I've also studied Jon Dart's, Don Cross's, GNU, and probably a couple others I've long since forgotten. I study them, but I never do the old "cut and paste." It would be easy for me *now* to say that source code shouldn't be provided, but I'd be a hypocrite for it. Let's be honest here: how many "chess programmers" have _never_ looked at another's source code for ideas? And why not? Isn't that what it's there for? It's much easier (for me) to grasp an idea when I can see the proper implentation.... Looking for ideas is one thing. Theft is quite another. I believe I've read Hyatt respond to the question of why he supplies source code before: to give something back to computer chess, which has given him so much over the last 30+ yrs. (Did I get that right Hyatt?) He has certainly done that. It's unfortunate that a few thieves here and there could potentially end this. Why do you oppose open source? Because you don't want to see a fellow programmer get robbed, or because that's just one more program that's better than yours? Again, it's a double edged sword. I, for one, am eternally grateful to those who have provided source. I think it takes a lot of "unselfishness." Hopefully one day I will come up with an idea or two that will benefit others. If I do, I'll return the favor. Just my two cents... --- James > >Personally i don't like the idea that crafty come with source code. I agree that >source code does provide quite a lot of info, but for *real* programmers, one or >two lines english is enough to get the idea. > >I don't like to let my program play any clones, either in the server or in a >tournament. I may play some crafties if they say it is a crafty running on a >different hardware, but i will not play those program who claim it is not crafty >because they change the compiler switch, add/delete 1 line of code, or whatever. > >The flood of crafties is one of the main reason kill my interests to play at >chess server fics. > >Maybe Bob will think twice about this. Other fellow programmers please let us >know your opinion. > >Ren. >On January 25, 1999 at 08:44:05, Steve Maughan wrote: > >>After the huge thread regarding Crafty and Bionic can I suggest a possible >>solution. >> >>How about Dr Hyatt retaining copyright on _part_ of the Crafty code. For >>example the MakeMove UnMakeMove section. This allows budding programmers to >>probe the _ideas_ behind Crafty eg Null Move, QSearch etc and incorporate them >>into their own programs. However, since it would be tough to completely rewrite >>only the MakeMove, UnMakeMove, it stops them using the entire code as the basis >>of another program. >> >>I must say the idea of dozens of Crafty clones at the next World Championship is >>a daunting thought. I think it would ruine the event. >> >>Just a suggestion. >> >>What do you all think! >> >>Steve Maughan
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.