Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:22:16 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 06:55:09, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 30, 2002 at 03:17:38, Martin Giepmans wrote: > >>Yesterday, when I woke up from my (off line) Christmas sleep >>and logged on to CCC, the news was everywhere: >> >> *** Ed reveals his secrets! *** >> >>Astonishing! >> >>Basically I agree with what others have said about it. >>It is a very nice thing to do, a wonderful Christmas present. >> >>But there are also other feelings. >>Imagine a programmer who has worked for years to improve his >>engine. He has discovered many ideas that Ed also discovered, >>or similar ones. These ideas gave his engine an edge and >>of course he has never revealed them to anyone. >> >>Then, one day he logges on to CCC and ... >>How would this programmer feel? >>Not too happy, I guess! >> > >So what? > >The way I see it, there is no reason that a horde of talented amateurs are >spending 10 years to come up with the same things as Ed and others have. You >don't have to be able to come up with the same things in the same time to be >talented. And you certainly don't have to be able to come up with the same >things in much shorter time to be talented. Revealing his secrets will give the >amateur field a good kick forward so all are up to appx. the same level. Chess >programmming techniques are being kept secret the way they are because of the >petty money involved. If it was scientifically important (and it might be) to >make good chess programs, all techniques would be publicized and the entire >field would benefit from this, and even stronger programs would result overall, >in the same timeframe. As it is now, a few people hold the lead, for no other >reason than money. That's fine by me, it's just not what's best for the field. >The idea that holdning back information causes competition is ridiculous. It >just narrows the people thinking on the edge of technology to a very little >crowd. > >Ed is my hero :) > >/David 1)I agree that there is no reason to hide information if you stop to compete. It is a pity that other programmers who stop to compete do not do it. I believe that no demage is going to be done to programmers who worked for years to improve their programs. Part of the ideas of Ed may be the same but not all of them. If a programmer who wants to make money thinks that he cannot think about better ideas than the commercial programs then he should not start to compete in the first place. 2)I do not think that it is scientifically important to make good chess programs. I do not think that the subject of thinking games is important for science and I also do not think that chess is more important for science than other games like go(the main problem of computers against humans is not in chess). 3)I think that if you care about what's best for the field you should suggest to pay money for people for revealing good new ideas(it is possible to decide to give prizes for poster who post productive ideas for chess programmers and programmers who try ideas can vote to decide how much to give every programmer) For this purpose someone needs to pay for that purpose but if 100 people pay every year 100$ for that purpose then the sum of prizes can be 10,000$. People pay money for new programs so I see no reason that they will not pay for new ideas that will make the program that they buy stronger. The main problem is to decide how much to pay out of the money to different posters(the money that is payed should be proportional to the value of the idea and programmers who try the ideas can give an estimate for the value of the idea) Uri
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.