Re: Perl Golf Ethics

[rinceWind]

The definitive place to look for answers to questions such as yours, should be the competition rules. As there doesn't seem to be an answer, I suggest sending an email to the address shown for "questions". I don't see why posting or emailing such a question is embarrassing - maybe you'll receive an answer that you don't like. But maybe the clarification would stop somebody else reusing an even better solution out there on the web, that you haven't found yet :).

Regarding the ethics, I do think that using somebody else's solution or part thereof, is going against the spirit of the competition, much in the same way as internet searches in school exams, or using a chess program to help find your moves against online opponents. On the other hand, if you can rattle off the techniques used in past golf solutions from memory, this is perfectly valid. Having another window open with the prior code in it, is to my mind cheating.

That's my take on it. I've never run a golf competition; maybe others can comment.

[polettix]

I remember a University colleague cheating with an assignment in AI - he had to build an alpha-beta pruning based opponent in connect4. He lingered until the very end, and then resorted to the Internet (and 10 years ago I don't remember Google :). He later commented: "0 in AI... but 10 in websurfing!".

It's interesting that you cite the chess game. There are a lot of books on chess, and many openings have been studied and are learnt by a lot of people. What would you think about someone reviewing his chess book while doing an online (e.g. play-by-mail) match? I'm not sure I'd reduce it all to "take it only from your memory", even if I've to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line.

[rinceWind]

With online chess, the rules are usually given on the site. For non real time chess, such as correspondence chess (e.g. http://www.redhotpawn.com) consulting opening books or chess opening websites is allowed, but feeding your moves or position to a chess program is not allowed, though they can't stop you, and it's difficult to prove it.

The site I mentioned has forums where this subject has been discussed in great depth.

[polettix]

It's interesting how mtve's book can be considered a "classic" for Perl golf (and thus could be considered "allowed"), while Thospel's procedure to find his beautiful "magic formula" has been automatically executed by a computer according to this (which would break chess' rules of "no automation"). But, of course, the geniality resides in thinking that such a formula exists, not in the raw calculations! :)