Moderator: Andres Valverde
Zach Wegner wrote:Wow, thanks Tord. I have always thought you were a very original thinker and have been interested in your ideas. And just by coincidence, I came up with an idea to compute attack tables while looking at your code just now, so I have to go code...
BTW: Would you consider source code exchanges? I might not want to release mine because it's so ugly, and my program sucks.
Naum wrote:I strongly disagree with anyone publishing the source code.
Naum wrote:First of all, this post is not related to Glaurung, but to the idea of publishing the source code.
I strongly disagree with anyone publishing the source code.
Winboard comunity mainly exists, because people enjoy running tournaments, and programmers enjoy competing in them.
Publishing source code totally destroys competitive side of chess programming. I HATE Crafty, and I think it's doing a big damage to this comunity. You never know who stole code from it, and how much of some engine's code is stolen from Crafty.
There are probably many not so good programmers who reach the plato in their development, and then start 'borrowing' code from the open source programs, because it's the only way for them to increase the strength of their engine.
What would be the purpose of publishing Glaurung's source. Crafty is already out there doing the damage.
You think your code is easier to read. Great! It will help someone to steal it more easily.
If someone wants to check the basic idea's, there is TSCP. If someone wants to dig in deeper, there is Crafty. I don't think there is need for anything else.
But I guess, as long as Crafty is out there, there is no reason why you shouldn't publish your own code. I just don't see the big reason for it.
... sharing ideas ...
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Hi Jos?,... sharing ideas ...
the question is, why such ideas must have the form of source code. Is a human being a compiler, who can better understand computer language than normal spoken words?
You _must_ study it to remain competitive
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Hi Jos?,
nevertheless my wife is sometimes regarding me as a kind of Mr. Spock I like to communicate using traditional human languages.
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:You _must_ study it to remain competitive
I never have studied Crafty etc. nor other programs from code. Thus I believe to have a very distinct solution beginning with its data structure. Whether it would be competitive to Crafty has to be tested, even when the first beta of Smirf still has a lot of weak points, where I have completed missing parts in a hurry instead of developing them similar serious as my data structure. E.g. my positional evaluation function is VERY slow. Nevertheless I am interested to learn about Smirf's Elo strength, but still have no time to test this.
If you are not a genius you probably cannot get better than Crafty only with original stuff.
... and I wait to hear results of beta testers of smirf ...
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:Hi Jos?,
so we already are at Formula 1 ... ok, suppose all driver would be identical automats (like the CPU in an PC), and imagine I would buy a Ferrari (ignoring the absence of money in my wallet) and moreover, that I surprisingly would gain a victory. What would be the difference to a victory reached by Ferrari itself? Where has been the competition?
Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:I like a competition of OWN ideas, not a race in patchworking FOREIGN sources.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest