Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:05:21 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 13:37:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 24, 2003 at 09:17:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 24, 2003 at 08:58:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 24, 2003 at 05:36:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 23, 2003 at 20:34:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 23, 2003 at 18:17:02, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>As usual I research the more general problems, since I am not a born programmer. >>>>>> >>>>>>When I see that many people in CC support around 200 amateurs - that's how they >>>>>>are called- who created FREE programs, and certain spin doctors who write about >>>>>>"difficulties" for the "professional" experts, I see several questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>1) Who created the many features say of the ChessBase database program? FREE >>>>>>amateurs or professionals? >>>>>> >>>>>>2) Could someone tell me what feature, just 1 example because I don't know any, >>>>>>was at first created by amateurs? >>>>> >>>>>The chess programs themselves. >>>>> >>>>>Endgame databases. >>>>> >>>>>Opening books. >>>>> >>>>>Graphical displays. >>>>> >>>>>game annotation features >>>>> >>>>>ECO opening classification by the computer. >>>>> >>>>>The ability to search thru large opening databases, citing win/lose/draw >>>>>percentages, who played the game, etc. >>>>> >>>>>I can't think of _much_ that was _not_ created by "amateurs"... >>>> >>>>Stupid me! Didn't get the exact questioning. Ok, let's take the display. The >>>>base of such a feature was inveted long ago, but then it's a totally different >>>>thing what content, chess related, is concerned. And I was only talking about >>>>such details. From the perspective of chessplayers. >>>> >>>>You deny the cloning of ChessBase features because their code is secret but I'm >>>>not satisfied with such an answer! With cloning I don't mean the exact copy of a >>>>product. I meant the re-coding of a feature that was INVENTED by a professional >>>>company. >>> >>>I can't think of anything that was _invented_ by a commercial company, in the >>>realm of computer chess. IE toss out an idea you think originated with them >>>and I'll see if I can find a reference to the amateur that originally used >>>the idea. Remember, the first computer chess tournament was held in 1970. >>>There was _no_ commercial computer chess programs around until the micros >>>came along, many years later. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>The whole debate and your short-cut answer gives me the impression that in chess >>>>there is no respect for the creations for the benefit of mankind, here chess >>>>people. What is the exact meaning of copyright? >>> >>>If you write code, it is _yours_. Nobody can copy the code itself. "look >>>and feel" is another issue, otherwise we would not have windows at all nor >>>the macintosh, since Xerox developed that years ago. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>NB that I do NOT have programs like Crafty in mind a more academic work in >>>>progress with open source! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>3) I read that people adore FREE programs like ARENA. They are proud that ARENA >>>>>>has all the features, or almost all, ChessBase also has; I ask if ARENA is a >>>>>>clone of ChessBase8? >>>>> >>>>>Impossible. Chessbase doesn't publish their source. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>4) As a more technical question: Is a smart amateur programmer able to program a >>>>>>clone of professional products? Or is cloning impossible if the code is secret? >>>>>> >>>>>>5) Could someone show - perhaps for other fields - what results out of the so >>>>>>called copying of professional ideas and products? Isn't it the consequence that >>>>>>the professional creative people become exhausted? >>>>>> >>>>>>6) Then, is't it a consequence that then also the amateurs have no longer >>>>>>something to copy? [NB I do NOT say that amateurs only copy all day long. See >>>>>>point 4 where I ask if copying is possible.] >>>>>> >>>>>>7) Who could tell me how the development in a field continues in case of >>>>>>amateurs cloning? >>>>> >>>>>Amateurs exist in _all_ fields and all disciplines. So I don't get your >>>>>point... >>>> >>>>See above. Amateurs in that sense that they "copy" existing features of a chess >>>>software. And then offer it for free to the users. I don't see the reason for >>>>such a nonsense or it is for academical examinations. >>> >>>I don't understand "such a nonsense". I can't think of a single thing that >>>a pro chess program did _first_. They might have taken an idea and refined >>>it or expanded it, but I'd be hard-pressed to point to something they developed >>>as new and unique, that wasn't done by some amateur/academic previously. NOt >>>that they couldn't, but the amateurs were simply "first" because they came first >>>in the development phase. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>8) In short: I see the danger of less progress and NOT- what the supporters and >>>>>>fans are doing - a higher coloring of a scene. >>>>> >>>>>Makes no sense to me. In the beginning there were _nothing_ but amateur >>>>>chess programs around. They started it all. >>>> >>>>You are saying that ChessBase programs are just a copy themselves? >>> >>>Using a weak definition, yes. I watched a computer chess tournament at the >>>1970 ACM conference. Commercial computer chess was unknown. 10 years later >>>it was just getting started. 10 years + after the amateur engines were already >>>playing. >> >> >>Horror! >> >>What you say is a complete turning of what I (and possibly many users) believed. >>I always believed in the philosophy that pro's had more time and all so that >>THEY led the 'development progress'. > >Sorry, but it didn't happen that way. :) > > >> >>a) THen is it all tuning against the known amateurs that still professional >>progs win in tournaments? Or what is the secret? I always read that they had >>that bit of advantage and believed that bit meant innovations.However without >>knowing them. >> > >The pros have a couple of advantages: > >1. They spend more time developing, and they may have a full-time group of >people working on various parts of things, from evaluating openings, to working >on >the GUI, to you-name-it. How do you know it? I do not assume that it is the case when I see that the gap between amateurs(Ruffian) and professionals is a small gap then I suspect that it is not the case. Most amateurs have other jobs and work on chess on a >part- >time basis, with varying amounts of time spent on chess. I think that it is the case also for most pros Amir has a full time job not in chess programming. > >2. They don't reveal what they do, but they _do_ have access to all the things >published >by "amateurs" from source code, to technical papers, to panel discussions. The same for part of the amateurs. That >is a >one-way information flow. Computer chess has grown over the years thanks to the >many >"baby steps" taken by many people but then _reported_ and _explained_ fully so >that others >can build on the ideas. > >3. The pros are much more organized in testing, and have multiple machines >dedicated >to playing programs, with a person or persons responsible for looking at the >games played >to see what is going on... I have no data to prove that theory and I believe that top amateurs also get a lot of machine time by beta testers. 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.