Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:09:58 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2003 at 08:41:01, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >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 ? How will that help the _next_ generation of computer chess authors? Answer: It won't. Computer chess was originally founded on openness and sharing. That's what made it prosper. If everyone had started in today's climate of secrecy, computer chess would be a decade or two behind what it is today. For example, how many would have discovered alpha/beta by themselves? Null-move? Hashing? Some? yes. But it would have taken years of effort to discover what really took today's programmers a week of reading to understand and implement. > >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. > Nobody says they are not "nice folks". > >>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.