Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 07:40:42 07/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2004 at 20:57:06, José Carlos wrote: >On July 25, 2004 at 10:44:23, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On July 25, 2004 at 06:26:14, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I was surprised to see that all the cheap engines that chessbase is selling are >>>free engines. >>> >>>I was also surprised that they sell old version of Sos from march 2000 but maybe >>>they believe that customers that buy engines instead of downloading them >>>deserve to get a worse version >>> >>>See http://www.chessbase.com/shop/index.asp?cat=Engines+direct&user=&coin= >>> >>>I wonder if the authors also earn money from it. >>>If few people want to support programmers by buying free programs because they >>>feel uncomfortable with downloading them when the author gets nothing from it >>>then there is no problem with it but I expect honest company to tell the >>>customers that the things that they buy are free to download and if they buy >>>them then it is only if they want to give some support to the programmers. >>> >>>Some more questions: >>>1)Can We say that Sos and crazyBishop are professional engines because they are >>>sold by chessbase and does it mean that the authors needed to pay 500$ >>>registration fee to participate in WCCC? >>> >>>2)Does chessbase need permission of the author in order to sell free engines or >>>maybe they can decide tommorow to sell Crafty? >>> >>>Uri >> >>1. The engines being sold are about 4 years old - no updates since initial >>release. >> >>2. The are chessbase native engines and they only work in Chessbase GUI. At >>the time, Fritz 7 was not supporting UCI engines, current Fritz GUI supports UCI >>engines. >> >>3. In the "old" Olympic definition, the programmers were paid and thus >>professional - but the authors are clearly not making their living by their >>chess programming - so I'm ok with still calling them amatuers. > > This definition is surprising to me. AFAIK, some programmers of considered >"comercial programs" don't make their living from chess programming (I migh be >wrong), for example Amir Ban and GC Pascutto. > I think it's very difficult to define "professional" in this context, and so >I'm against different fees for them in championships. Maybe the selling >companies should be charged with the professional fee, but never the programmer. >Is there an official definition for "professional chess programmer" written >somewhere? I agree - my definition above is to illustrate how hard it is to define. I'm also against different fees for different classes of programmers since it is so hard to define. Whatever is the total amount they want to collect from the programmers - divide it by the number of programmers - they ashould all pay the same. I think they should solicit some corporate sponsorship more agressively to help keep fees down. I would start with Intel, AMD amd maybe Chessbase. Chessbase can play the lower entry fees and make it up with a corporate sponsorhip to keep what they pay the same. > > José C. > > >>4. There are really no rules with respect to your question - so anyone group >>can interpert the facts as they see them. There is also no chess programming >>oversight body to enforce the rules = so Chessbase sets (interperts) the rules >>as they see them, the ICCC as they see them, the SSDF as they see etc etc. I >>guess you say with chess programming - it is still the wild wild west. Did we >>ever see the alledged crafty clone code from List. I'm still waiting for that >>one.
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.