Daniel Mehrmann wrote:Dann Corbit wrote:
I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.
It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).
I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.
For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.
If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.
Oh well, of course i readed much about the common technics in computerchess and looked on example code (engines (TSCP)), but i wrote all myself from scratch.
If i understand you correctly you suggest me that i should use Fruit code for example and do a rewrite to create my own engine ?
Best,
Daniel
No, you do not understand me correctly.
First of all, let me complement your mammoth achievement. I imagine that given 100 programmers (who are probly less than 10% of the population) less than 10% of them can complete a working chess program.
This immediately puts you into a special category.
On the other hand, I will soundly chastize anyone who writes a chess program without:
1. Reading all the technical papers he can get his hands on
2. Carefully examining all of the existing open source implementations that are worth learning from (and certainly Fruit, Scorpio and Glaurung fall into that category along with the simpler ones that are better suited for early study).
Then, having been armed with these ideas, a great deal of thinking should be applied to the problem.
To me, there is no glory in deliberate ignorance. And I do not believe it is possible to write a better chess program strictly due to deliberate ignorance.
As far as dissassembly of commercial programs -- I don't really like it even though it is not illegal. But it is none of my business if someone else does it.
Now, let's take a step back and look at the big picture. There are many occasions when someone has taken someone else's work and (without mention) taken credit for this work as their own. In nearly all of these cases, the action is exposed and the perpetrator runs away with their tail between their legs. I think that the moral part probably escapes the secondary authors and they often completely rectify the problem (e.g Thomas Gasch went from goat to hero in my eyes).
So, I do not worry about people trying to leapfrog the effort of others and make claims that all the jump was pure spring in their own legs. If they do have nice, twitchy muscles then it will show out in the end. And if they did borrow a set of booster springs and glue them to the bottom of their shoes eventually we will see it.
I actually feel a little better now that I have written this post. It's like my mother used to say, "It will all come out in the wash."