🚀 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) 
-----					         	       -----

More on copycatting:

In reality we all build on what others have done.  Even IMPire built
on the old imp strategy.  I think most people get stuck trying to
make an existing strategy more efficient - less lines of code, instead
of mixing strategies or trying something new.  The originator has probably
tested many variations already, so we're not likely to improve an
existing program, and as the other guy (I forgot who's note I was replying
to) stated, "my variations usually degenerate into the existing Emerald
or Nomuckingabout or whatever".

There are certain redcode irreducibles: an imp, a three-line bomber,
a six-line mouse, stone, etc.  These have aged sufficiently to be 
considered 'components', which can be incorporated into new, more
complex programs.  Some other code-parts are also available: the gate-form
published by Mintardjo which he later stated is not original/unique.  I also
don't believe step-sizes should be proprietary.  When N. Sieben published
a number of optimum step-sizes, was he not recommending them for use?

Most importantly, we can't claim ownership to idea/strategy/concept.
Once the general idea has been made public, you can't claim it for
yourself.  Only the specific implementation in your own code belongs
to you.  So everyone is free to write their own bomber/stone, replicator/
paper, scanner, pittrapper, imp-ring, stone-paper combo, or whatever.

I made the statement that in the long run, copycatting is not an effective
strategy.  Your program will slowly slide down the hill - along with
the original - as other developers attack your common strategy.  I think
this is a true statement.  Flash Paper was basically undone by the 
appearance of other stone-paper fighters.

I did not intend by that statement to approve knocking off someone
else's code, only to make an observation.  The question of where
originality comes in is a hard one to answer in general terms.  I suggest
the answer is in forced publication.  If all programs on the Hill over
four weeks old were published, the participants could judge whether
someone was unfairly copying others' code.  As long as everyone understood
when they submitted their programs that if they become successful,
they will be made public, there should be no problem with publishing
them.

As for Emerald being a clone of Kobold, Emerald beats Kobold something
like 60/30.  Here's the latest code for Emerald.  Is it different enough
from Kobold/Twill/Stone for me to claim ownership?

(BTW, Matt, I removed the reflections.  Since Charon and NMA disappeared,
they were only drawing the attention of other scanners.  But I still know
where they are if I need them. :)

;redcode
;name Emerald
;kill Emerald
;author P.Kline
;strategy stone with djn stream
;strategy attempting a gate
spacing  equ 2365
hide1    spl 0,<-6
hide2    mov 49,<-20
hide3    dat <-7,<-8
hide     dat #inc+1037-130+1020
start    mov hide3,inc+1037+48-130+1020
         mov hide2,<hide       ; create the one-dwarf->gate code
         mov hide1,<hide
         mov inc+0,inc+1020    ; move stone far away from decoy
hideb    mov inc+1,inc+1020+1
         mov inc+2,inc+1020+2
         mov inc+3,inc+1020+3
         mov inc+4,inc+1020+4
         spl @hide
         spl @hideb
         mov #0,-7             ; don't leave any pointers to stone
         mov #0,-7
         mov #0,-7
         mov #0,-7
         mov #0,-7
inc      dat #0-spacing,#spacing
emerald  spl 0
stone    mov <cnt-spacing-2,cnt+spacing
         add inc,stone
cnt      djn stone,<inc-129
         end start

Paul Kline
pk6811s@acad.drake.edu

In article <28334@castle.ed.ac.uk> sah@castle.ed.ac.uk (Juggler) writes:
>
>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.
>

Well, in this case it's genuinely "parallel development". Sucker 4 entered the
hill sometime May/June, but I didn't post the code until it got pushed off 
two weeks ago. The code to Kobold was posted somewhere between those two time
points, I think. A good constant can make the difference between doom and
success on KotH, but it strikes me as silly to claim "intellectual
property" for a number.

I personally have no problem with copycatting, *provided* the code originator
is acknowledged in the strategy lines or as co-author. I've had a long and
fruitful collaboration with Jules Cisek that started when I optimized his 
posted Charon v1.0. Lately, Matt Hastings has approached me with some
anti-imp mods to Agony (taught me a lot about ring-defenses, too), a
collaboration I hope to continue.

-Stefan (stst@vuse.vanderbilt.edu)

P.S.: I wish Bill Shubert would add a filter to KotH that rejects warriors
with missing or uninformative strategy lines. "Sorry, your redcode program
did not compile successfully due to insufficient documentation" :-) :-)

In article <1992Nov18.085805.1@acad.drake.edu> pk6811s@acad.drake.edu writes:
>More on copycatting:
>
>In reality we all build on what others have done.  Even IMPire built
>on the old imp strategy.  I think most people get stuck trying to
>make an existing strategy more efficient - less lines of code, instead
>of mixing strategies or trying something new.  The originator has probably
>tested many variations already, so we're not likely to improve an
>existing program, and as the other guy (I forgot who's note I was replying
>to) stated, "my variations usually degenerate into the existing Emerald
>or Nomuckingabout or whatever".

Even Backfire, which I thought was original when I first wrote it was
doing the same thing as a few other programs, though in a different
manner.

>There are certain redcode irreducibles: an imp, a three-line bomber,
>a six-line mouse, stone, etc.  These have aged sufficiently to be 
>considered 'components', which can be incorporated into new, more
>complex programs.

Sounds like how I do my X-Hill development.  I have a few core
routines that are generic (steps defined by EQU, etc), and I
just string togetheher routines.  I wish KOTH supported an
include statement, it would make updating my warriors easier 
when I update a module :-).  I've got modules for forward carpet
bomb, forward SPL CB, reverse for both, fwd and rev fasttrack
(something that I haven't used in the hill yet), Anti-replicator
missiles, decoys, monitors, imp-gates, etc.  The hardest part
is fitting several complex modules into a single 100 line
program.  Master Tactician was a project of mine that
got shelved because the finished program would have been 140
lines of code, so I stupified it and released it as chameleon.
And on the X-hill, 100 line programs can be successful.  Most of
my long programs are just that.  In fact, Sonic Boom 3.2 was exactly
100 lines long, without a single byte of padding.  So was Spider 2,
for that matter.

If you haven't guessed, yes I'm trying to encourage X-hill
development, rather than continuing flames.  Reuse of redcode
is pretty much normal.  The idea for repeating core-clears started
with Spider 2.1, to the best of my knowledge, I made them more
popular, and now they appear in most of the top 10 X-Hill warriors.

I was a little afraid to publish the source to Echo or Sonic boom
at first, because I was afraid to cause a flood of imitators, but
I don't see that as a problem anymore.  sonic Boom 1.2 is the first
definite improvement to Sonic Boom 1.0 that I've done, and that
took a lot of work, not some trivial modifications.  In fact,
1.2 is mostly a major, but very subtle bug fix to SB 1.0

Enough about that, lets talk new uses for old ideas :-)
-- 
Eric J. Schwertfeger, maniac@cs.unlv.edu