🚀 go-pugleaf

	I'm feeling slightly guilty, as I may have inadvertantly sparked
off this small contoversy about originality (Should we be discussing
this on alt.intellectual.property? :-)). I am now going to implement the
strategy which I declared then, and cut bits from everybody's posts, add one
line and call the result my own! 
	Here's the copied bit:

Roger Ford (or is it Chris??) writes:
There are a finite number of ways to implement Red Code warrriors,
just as an example.  Both Sucker 4 and the first Kobold both use a step 
rate of 37.  Granted one bombs and one slaves  are we going to say that
one guy copied another.  No matter what you change the step rate to
Emerald is just Kobold is just  Stone.

Paul Kline writes:
I estimate I spent over 40 hours experimenting with different constants
in Emerald to give it an effective (and unique) bombing pattern.
There is more to Emerald than the stone component. Emerald beats Kobold
60/30. Imprimis 2 beats Impression 15/0, and is the only ring program that
consistently scores 10-20% wins against other rings.
He also says:
There are differences between Impression and Imprimis. [differences duly
pointed out]

then Jim (jtf9s@poe.acc) comments:
Harsh, harsh, harsh.  Corewar is a rough game, it appears.  Jim, here,
was thinking about trying it out; after this posting, however, it seems
that he may not be up to the task.  Perhaps a little weight-lifting first,
eh?

	And here's my bit:
I reckon that this debate can be split into two questions, and Jim
implicitly raised a third.
	Firstly: who did what first? 
Obviously I've got no idea about who wrote anything or when it was
written. I must admit, I've always seen it as a sort of universal drive
towards excellence on everybody's part.
	Secondly: What constitutes "new" code?
After reading the unabridged versions of the above posts, and many
others, I can think of two criterion that I would apply to my own
warriors (if they ever stood a chance of getting onto the hill...).
Firstly (as I've mentioned before), if the code contains at least one
new (and functional) line, such as the awesome "dat #0" in, erm ... was
it imprimus?. Secondly, in light of the above discussion, if the redcode
does better than it's peers (i.e. changing the numbers in, for example, No
Mucking About (what a *nice* name) and getting a 5 point improvement in
it's score). It being that koth is such a clever little program, I don't
see why people (like me ) who are prone to blatant copying in lieu of
sparkling intellect, shouldn't add a ;strategy line, or an ;author line
acknowledging the person with the original idea. It works for Gnu
software. 
	Thirdly: What provisions are there for new subscribers?
Despite the (very informative) FAQ, wouldbe new talent is chucked in
right at the deep end. The programmes on koth are sophisticated, n-th
generation warriors, and bloody hard to understand (I speak from hours
of experience!). As a consequence, newcomers have two choices, namely
accept that their first dozen codes will be disasters, or take some
proven code, alter it minimally, and experience the thrill of being on
koth (gosh). Which would you do in that situation?

	As an afterthought, and a blatant attempt to get more involved
in the copycat game, here is some code of my own (at least, I *hope*
that nobody's thought of it already, anyway). Please take it, copy
it, and call it your own. I'd be dead chuffed if other people found uses
for it. It trashes stoners, but isn't much good against anything else,
as it warps core rather than actually bombing. it also suffers the
(minor) problem of commiting hari-kiri after 3 Twill-like self
mutations. Nevertheless, it achieved my highest score (ninety-something)
on koth yet.
	
	TTFN,folks
		Si.
		xxx

;redcode verbose
;name Road Hammer 0.3
;author Simon Hovell
;date Nov 1992
;strategy warps core
;strategy inspired by emerald and twill
;
bomb1: spl 0
clear:  mov <bomb1,<bomb1
        djn clear, <bomb1


	P.S. What the hell is a Mintardjo gate, and how do you pronounce
it (or him)?
-- 
S.A.Hovell,Dept. Electrical Engineering,University of Edinburgh,U.K.
(+31) 650-5655	 			          (Juggler@ed.ac.uk) 
-----					         	       -----