Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 05:41:01 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
I as well would much prefer the option 2 myself , but : > Some commercal interests have made a good chunk of money (not >bad in itself) by taking advantage of open research (papers, test data, game >collections, etc.) but have done little or nothing in return. On the other >hand, there are those researchers who have made little, if any money from their >work, yet who continue to advance the field with ideas, data, and mentoring. > >I remain wholly unimpressed with one shot publicity stunts that do next to >nothing to help with our Art. I disagree again. Commercial programmers have written by far the superior computer chess programs. If that is no contribution, then what ? I remember having a longish E-mail exchange with "SMK" some years ago, where he very patiently reacted to some of my wonderfull ideas of improving chess programs. If he had not reacted that way, I might now not be programming. Then look at Ed's pages. If he was a "scientist" he would make a "thesis" out of the wealth of information, "improve" some test data for "easier readability" and then publish his information in some obscure journal you can with no trouble get at the university of Honolulu. No, I very much like commercial chess programmers. >Let's say tthat you had US$200,000 available for computer chess and two options: > >1. Sponsor a one time, four game event with a US$200,000 prize fund and only two >players. > >2. Sponsor an annual tournament event with two dozen program entrants with no >prize fund, but with at least partial coverage of travel and lodging expenses. > >Both options cost the same. Both options have plenty of publicity benefits. I feat that this is not true. Did you see the excellent publicity Fritz-Kasparov gets (at least in Germany) ? Georg
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.