Re: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments - two sections?

[David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxx>]

On 10, May 2005, at 7:12 AM, Nick Wedd wrote:

> strength, maturity, and speed, are not the issue.  The issue is that 
> SlugGo relies on GNUGo to generate its moves, or some of them.  I feel 
> bad about this, I would like to see SlugGo competing somehow.  It's 
> difficult, and this problem is going to get worse.
I hope not, and I hope that by having these open discussions we are 
able to understand the constraints that tournament directors feel they 
need to work under, as well as the desires of the community of Go 
programmers.

As mentioned, Explorer and Go Intellect are derivative programs, and 
these are considered "original enough" or "divergent enough" from the 
original to be considered unique. It is worth noting that these 
programs are derived from a software base explicitly designed to be a 
"workbench" for the development of game programs.

I think that it is important that we all realize that *any* set of 
rules will have loopholes that can be exploited in unexpected ways, and 
that time not be wasted on an attempt to craft a bullet-proof set of 
criteria for uniqueness. Rather, I would like the discussion to center 
for the next little while on what the computer Go community would like 
to see happen, that is: what are we trying to accomplish and what will 
serve those goals? I have little concern for those who would attempt to 
get a temporary moment of fame via deceit. They will eventually get 
their status properly reset. With respect to the comments about  clones 
of Crafty, did any of those (non)programmers ever get any real long 
term benefit?

It is my opinion that the authors of the source program should be the 
determinant of the status of derivative works. GNU sources are very 
specific about their licensing and I think that should serve as the 
basis for the consideration of GNU Go derivatives. It is clear that 
their intent is to supply a base set of code for the further 
development of the field, within the constrains of proper disclosure. 
Clearly the situation is quite different for source codes that are 
taken without the original author's permission, and in this case I 
think the proper outcome still comes naturally from the same 
consideration: The authors of the source program determine the status 
of derivative works.



Cheers,
David


_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/