Author: John Merlino
Date: 16:05:35 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 18:54:26, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi John, > >I want to start near the end of your posting: > >> (Forget about Nalimov's EGTB probing code and any other code that can be >> used with permission). > >THIS is the point where clones are splitted. When everything happens with >permission of the author of the original source and with mentioning him >everywhere, then I am fine with that. Example: Beowulf (original) and Horizon... >or TSCP (original) and Trace (where I believe that the newer Trace have not much >TSCP left in them) >Here, everything is fine... > >If there is no permission and/or no mentioning copying source-code is definitely >a "no-no" ! > >So the answers: > >> If the author took Crafty and completely rewrote the evaluation code and >> nothing else, would it be a clone? > >CLONE > >> How about if the author rewrote the evaluation code and search algorithm >> only, but left the hashing code, et. al.? > >CLONE > >> How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for the evaluation? > >CLONE > >> How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for Crafty's evaluation of >> passed pawns? > >CLONE > >Why this all ? Well, it's simple: usually you can't take part of Crafty's code >and implement that in your own engine -> it would simply not fit in your >internal datastructures... if it does, then it is suspicious... > >Greets, Thomas Fair enough, and an easy definition to understand. But let's say that an author took TSCP, modified it to some degree and gave Tom credit. Even though you do not call that a clone, would you still say it is acceptable for it to be entered in a tournament like the CCT? Do you think others would complain? jm
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.