Author: Daniel Shawul
Date: 20:51:46 02/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 10:46:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: I don't have your search or your eval. Why don't you check my source code and post here. Is that too much to ask?? >On February 15, 2005 at 18:38:43, John Merlino wrote: > >>I'm not trying to start a brutally long thread here, but I'm just curious about >>how people feel about a particularly touchy subject -- clones. What, in your >>mind, would lead you to the conclusion that an engine is a clone? >> >>Let's forget trying to find ways to PROVE that a clone is a clone; I'm just >>trying to define one. For the sake of argument, assume that the author of this >>engine in question tells you exactly what he did and did not do, and you must >>decide whether to call it a clone or not. >> >>Here are some hypothetical questions to start the debate: >> >>If the author took Crafty and completely rewrote the evaluation code and nothing >>else, would it be a clone? >> >>How about if the author rewrote the evaluation code and search algorithm only, >>but left the hashing code, et. al.? >> >>How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for the evaluation? >> >>How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for Crafty's evaluation of >>passed pawns? >> >>I think you can see where I'm driving. Obviously, many engine authors have >>studied Crafty and other engines whose authors have graciously provided their >>source code. But, for an engine to not be considered a clone, does it have to be >>absolutely 100% the work of the author? (Forget about Nalimov's EGTB probing >>code and any other code that can be used with permission). >> >>Many thanks in advance for your thoughts, >> >>jm (who's just preparing for any eventuality during his upcoming stint as >>moderator :-) > > >Here is my thinking. > >1. The things that give a program its "personality" are the evaluation and the >search itself. The search defines the program's tactical ability, the >evaluation defines the programs non-tactical chess playing ability. Copying >either/both should not be allowed. > >2. Other parts such as the opening book are probably OK. For example how many >are using a GUI that handles the book outside of the engine? That seems >difficult to stop. Of course a "shared opening book" is a no-no, since that is >another part of a program that defines its playing skill level. > >If there is something that produces a single correct answer, such as "what is >the set of moves for this position?" or "what is the updated chess position >after making or unmaking this move?" or "what is the expected (SEE) win/loss for >capturing on this square?" or "is the king in check?" then there is little >reason to worry about those parts being copied, because copied or written from >scratch, they by necessity produce exactly the same answer. But the eval and >search don't have that characteristic.
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.