Computer Chess Club
https://talkchess.com/
Here here!Tom Barrister wrote:It's good to see that Rybka managed, in a couple of years, to rise from 53rd
place up to the top of the heap. It shows what superior programming skills
can do. Congratulations to the 20 or 30 programmers who made it possible.
Yep,it was a great team achievementTom Barrister wrote:It's good to see that Rybka managed, in a couple of years, to rise from 53rd
place up to the top of the heap. It shows what superior programming skills
can do. Congratulations to the 20 or 30 programmers who made it possible.
For the record it's "Hear, hear" unless you mean to identify location.AdminX wrote:Here here!Tom Barrister wrote:It's good to see that Rybka managed, in a couple of years, to rise from 53rd
place up to the top of the heap. It shows what superior programming skills
can do. Congratulations to the 20 or 30 programmers who made it possible.
Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.Tom Barrister wrote:Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law.
Yes, that's a real quote, and it shows how desperate the Rybka folks have gotten.
Correct. Just a ton of reverse-engineering so that a .doc or .xls file will produce the same results using either microsoft office or open office. And apparently that has passed all the "legal checks and balances". But it does not make that OK if you tried to enter openoffice in an ICGA chess tournament.Dirt wrote:Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.Tom Barrister wrote:Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law.
Yes, that's a real quote, and it shows how desperate the Rybka folks have gotten.
It is still a clone / derivative (in this case really a clone intended to be identical in all ways, but without using the original source, instead produced by inspection of the binary, + the .doc files to see what the mark-up looks like).Wouldn't it be ok as long as Microsoft Office wasn't entered? :-)bob wrote:Correct. Just a ton of reverse-engineering so that a .doc or .xls file will produce the same results using either microsoft office or open office. And apparently that has passed all the "legal checks and balances". But it does not make that OK if you tried to enter openoffice in an ICGA chess tournament. :) It is still a clone / derivative (in this case really a clone intended to be identical in all ways, but without using the original source, instead produced by inspection of the binary, + the .doc files to see what the mark-up looks like).Dirt wrote:Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.
Wait a minute. The Openoffice people never had access to the Word source code. All they did was discover the ideas via RE, and then literally wrote from ground up an original program. It's Original with a capital O and should be allowed to play in all chess tournaments.bob wrote:Correct. Just a ton of reverse-engineering so that a .doc or .xls file will produce the same results using either microsoft office or open office. And apparently that has passed all the "legal checks and balances". But it does not make that OK if you tried to enter openoffice in an ICGA chess tournament.Dirt wrote:Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.Tom Barrister wrote:Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law.
Yes, that's a real quote, and it shows how desperate the Rybka folks have gotten.
I would not use that term in that way. For example, a clone should have the same output given the same input. I want a .doc file to display the way I wrote it, exactly... Chess engines are "pluggable" obviously, but each is normally different in the analysis it provides, etc...Dirt wrote:Wouldn't it be ok as long as Microsoft Office wasn't entered?bob wrote:Correct. Just a ton of reverse-engineering so that a .doc or .xls file will produce the same results using either microsoft office or open office. And apparently that has passed all the "legal checks and balances". But it does not make that OK if you tried to enter openoffice in an ICGA chess tournament.Dirt wrote:Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.
Really, though, by the definition of clone used by Open Office I think all UCI engines would be clones, since it's simple to replace one with another and they would work more or less the same. Likewise all Winboard engines. If you include polyglot they would all be clones, but some would be better than others.
Chess doesn't use the term clone in that way, but it's not a term that you can rely on being understood when talking outside of the chess community.
Not so clear. One can reverse engineer by taking known input and observing output. Or can take a binary and disassemble and study that instead. If you disassemble to obtain ideas, I think it is perfectly legal. If you disassemble and the copy verbatim what you found, then that is a form of cloning, or else is a derivative if you make some changes...benstoker wrote:Wait a minute. The Openoffice people never had access to the Word source code. All they did was discover the ideas via RE, and then literally wrote from ground up an original program. It's Original with a capital O and should be allowed to play in all chess tournaments.bob wrote:Correct. Just a ton of reverse-engineering so that a .doc or .xls file will produce the same results using either microsoft office or open office. And apparently that has passed all the "legal checks and balances". But it does not make that OK if you tried to enter openoffice in an ICGA chess tournament.Dirt wrote:Clone is used in chess circles in a different way than in software generally. For instance, Open Office is considered a clone of Microsoft Office, but with no (I hope) copying of code.Tom Barrister wrote:Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law.
Yes, that's a real quote, and it shows how desperate the Rybka folks have gotten.