Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:28:01 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 14:05:21, Uri Blass wrote: >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 don't _know_ it. But it is a _high_ probability. > >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. Not the same thing. > >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.