Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:14:10 12/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2000 at 07:09:52, Harry Field wrote: >On December 06, 2000 at 16:26:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 06, 2000 at 13:30:05, Harry Field wrote: >> >>>On December 06, 2000 at 10:52:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 06, 2000 at 01:20:08, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 06, 2000 at 00:50:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Isn't this the latest fad? Can you say "deep junior", "deep fritz"? Care >>>>>>to guess where "deep" was first used? :) Ie what could be more confusing >>>>>>than "deep junior" after there is already a very famous program that went >>>>>>by "deep blue junior"??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I wouldn't have dared to say it myself. I happen to be in perfect agreement with >>>>>you on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>I'm a big boy. I don't mind stating the obvious. >>> >>>Except you happen to be wrong. Big boy. >>> >> >>Nice opinion, no proof? >> > >Just read on. The proof is revealed. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Seems to me that borrowing from a "famous name" is quite acceptable, >>>>>>wouldn't you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I did not say it is not acceptable or illegal. >>>>> >>>>>It's just a low commercial practice. And generally used by followers, that's why >>>>>I have been disappointed to see Stefan doing it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>I wouldn't begin to claim to know the motivation behind any of the look-alike >>>>names. I simply don't like the idea much. IE "crafty" is "crafty" whether it >>>>is a parallel searcher or a serial searcher. I don't like any of the following, >>>>personally: >>>> >>>>1. the name is a proper subset of the name of another program. IE there is >>>>already a program named x y z, and the new name is either x y, x z or y z. >>>> >>>>2. the name is an improper subset of the name of another program. ie there >>>>is a program named x y, and the new program is named x z or y z. >>>> >>>>1 certainly leads to mass confusion. 2 leads to some confusion. Both seem to >>>>be 'strange'... >>>> >>>>IE on ICC we have had a "deepblue", a "deeperblue". A "diepblue". Etc. >>>>I don't like any of them. Since none have Hsu/Campbell/Hoane/etc behind them. >>> >>>Hsu/Cambell ripped the name "Deep Thought" off from the Douglas Adams book >>>"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Deep Thought was a computer which was >>>supposed to be able to answer the question of life, the universe and everything, >>>taking seven million years and producing the answer "42". >>> >>>Also around at that time, as "big boys" will remember, was the Linda Lovelace >>>porn movie "Deep Throat", featuring a prolonged act of oral sex for the "first" >>>time on mass release in video porn stores. The name "Deep Throat" was then used >>>for the mole in the Nixon administration which was feeding inside informations >>>to Woodward/Berstein team reference the Watergate scandal. Whether Deep Thought >>>or Deep Throat came first (sic), I don't know. Both came before Hsu and co. >>> >>>Deep Thought was then renamed Deep Blue for IBM purposes. How your theory that a >>>ripped off name could then be 'owned' and further users of it castigated is >>>beyond me. Have you an agenda or case to prove? >> >> >> >>I don't have anything to prove. > > >!!!!!!! > > > The _first_ chess program to use the name >>"deep anything" was deep thought. IBM then changed the name to deep blue. >>That is what I said. That is _all_ I said. > > >No it is not all you said. You call "Deep" a "look-alike" name, implying that >the original was Hsu and co's Deep Thought (you said first used) and the later >version names are confusing, look-alikes, of dubious motivation, strange, odd. > >All that I said was that the Hsu and co name was not original either and ripped >off Douglas Adams. The rip off was in more ways than one. DeepThought was a >hubristic attempt that didn't work, to solve life the universe and everything, >it was attended by high priest programmers who were in awe of it and eventually, >after an unexpected seven million years of processing it provided a useless >answer by a thinking process nobody could understand. DeepThought rip off >version was produced, hubristically, in total lack of understanding of the irony >of the original, to solve by deep search the problem of an 8x8 zero-sum game >(thought of by the computer chess fanatics as life, the universe and >everything), it is attended by high priest programmers and acoloytes in awe of >it and it provided a useless answer, before being taken to pieces for ever, by a >thinking process nobody could understand or wanted to use again. As I said, I don't _care_ about other names using "deep" as in "deep throat" and the like. The subject du jour is chess program names. And there, Hsu and Campbell _do_ have dibs on the name deep thought. And IBM has apparently registered "deep blue" as a trademark so they _definitely_ have dibs on that name. I don't think GM would care if someone produced a knife named "Impala". But I don't think they would stand for a BMW model with that name. Ditto for chess engines. > >Both machines were cheats, both were principally hardware, both couldn't do what >they were supposed to do, both required 7 million years to reach a useless >answer, both were scrapped, etc. etc. etc. That is an _incredibly_ stupid statement. "Both machines were cheats, ..." Total stupidity. Deep Blue was an incredible failure, after all it could only manage to beat the best human on the planet. Real "cheat" I would say... Talk about other motives or an axe to grind... seems you should check your mirror... > > > It is _famous_ as the name of >>an Carnegie-mellon development (deep thought) and then an IBM development >>project (deep blue). >> >>All quite easy to verify. I would see no problem with someone naming their >>program "HAL" from 2001, because there has _never_ been a chess program >>named HAL. > >Ha ! Just try it, and watch how fast a lawsuit comes crashing down on your head. >HAL is an original name, subject to copyright. You confuse "Cray Blitz" which is >copyright Cray for the Cray bit, and possible the two words together, but Blitz >alone or in another combination? No chance. I have a cousin named Hal. Never been sued. I know an international chess arbiter named Hal Bogner. He was never sued either, neither was his parents. I doubt Hal was trademarked. > >> I don't believe that I (or Christophe) castigated anybody. I >>would take issue with someone using the name "crafty" in any form for a name, >>although saying their program is a "crafty chess player" would be quite >>legitimate. >> >>Don't you find the names a bit "odd"? > >No. > >> >>We had Deep Blue and Deep Blue Junior, and now Deep Junior and/or deep fritz. >> >>We had gambit tiger, and then "gambit shredder"? > >Before was Kasparov's Gambit and GambitSoft. So what? Gambitsoft has nothing to do with this. It is _not_ a chess engine name.. > >> >>I would think everyone could be more original than that, _if_ they wanted to >>be. >> > >So your entire argument boils down to how "original" are the thought processes >of the namer? And this is worthy of a thread? Come on. > >Imo, you, and Christophe, are playing ownership games to things neither of you >own. The function being self-flattering noise. Believe what you want. The idea is _still_ a stupid one. Legally, the names should be trademarked to provide protection. But realistically, chess engines don't produce enough income for commercial entities to want to take the time and spend the money to make this happen. I can think of other examples.. "chess master" is one. Two common terms. But only one well-known program by that name. It is poor taste, if nothing else... to usurp a name or part of a name, when the usurped part doesn't really add to your own name. IE "grandmaster" is something many _could_ use without any sort of name conflict. But "deep" has no chess content, and is only a take-off idea. Putting "gambit" in front of your name also has the same basis. > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>"Gambit" is a well known chess term and is and has been used left right and >>>centre for quite a while. You can purchase chess programs at "Gambitsoft", you >>>can purchase "Kasparov's Gambit", there is a "Gambit Tiger", programs now are >>>released with "versions" containing Gambit in the name. We know some of you like >>>to own everything, but facts right before foot goes in mouth in future, please. >>>You are not original. >> >> >>Based on your arcane argument, no program name is unique. Yet I would claim >>there has _never_ been a program named "blitz", "cray blitz", or "crafty", >>except for the ones written by me. I would also think it inappropriate for >>anybody to use those names on a chess program. > >Ok, I declare the name "Chess Blitz". What are you going to do about it? Declare that you are an idiot and go on with life. > >> >>My foot is not in my mouth. > >Oh yes it is. > > And I (nor anybody else I know of) don't want >>to "own everything". > >Oh yes you do. I'll let you have the last word. This conversation isn't worth having. > > But there is no sense in causing confusion, and perhaps >>trying to gather a bit of promotional appeal by using a name that is well >>known. > >For someone who drops Crafty or Cray Blitz into every post at will, the charge >of "trying to gather a bit of promotional appeal by using a name" seems a tad >hypocritical. Self-promotion is the name of the game. That is the name of _my_ program. I don't see a problem when _I_ use Crafty, or Ed uses Rebel, etc. Those are well-known to be _ours_...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.