Author: Jürgen Hartmann
Date: 03:35:29 02/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
For you it must be terribly discouraging to play an important tournament and get beaten by Crafty. Well, computer chess is not only science, but also a sport. However for the others: Wouldn't the publication of more strong sources be helpful then? Because it forces people to compare and to *understand* what the authors are doing to extract the good concepts. I wonder whether competitors in major tournaments could be obliged to have their source available on request. In cases of doubt, the tournament committee starts a little exam: "Please explain how you implemented parallelization. What does this function do? What does this variable mean?" :) Jürgen On February 16, 1999 at 00:35:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 15, 1999 at 19:03:33, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Bob: >>After returning from my holydays I just come here and I see again the discussion >>about Crafty. The issue has returned in force, so it seems. Great that it is so >>because touches a foundamental issue. The proof of it is that any sparkle kindle >>the fire again. Let me add a little bit of charcoal to it saying that I see some >>confusions here. Confusions that are dangerous for you. But if they are MY >>confusions, then explain me them to me to learn a little more. >>Confusions are, I believe, the following ones: >>a) confusion between how good or desirable -or not- is to give something for >>nothing AND the use of it that some people with an ethic of a 2 dollar whore as >>Bob said, can do of it. >>b) confusion between the field of freeware, generosity in the giving and taking >>of ideas, etc, all that world that Bob see and recall with some nostalgy, and >>the world of sheer egotism, money, fame, commercial enterprises, etc. >>c) confusion about the status of this field: it is a science or a kind of it >>where, like any other, it need perpetual share of ideas to grow OR it is just a >>technical endeavour where the eseential point is personal reputation, money, >>etc, anything that can be got trogught better means. >> >>If this is a science, you, Bob, has done what is the very best thing to improve >>and push progress, no matter what, no matter cheaters, no matter abuse. A >>scientist is a public man. Is a man that makes publics his statements. No >>scientist just could do as fake scientist of cartoons inventing awful and secret >>things. That's has to do with power, not with science. And chess programming has >>an advantage over other fields: you can go beyond just publishing general >>statements or formulas; you can show the real thing in detail. That's what you >>have done and I think you did well, even if you maybe is now thinking >>differently. What you did is good and desirable even if some people made bad use >>of it. The full field of sciences is prone to that mischance. > >my concern is this: I released the source to this program to make public >what I consider to be 'state of the art'. No I don't do everything I want >to do, yet... as this is still a 'research' project to me, and I want to try >to try everything slowly and carefully. But my intent, from day one of deciding >to release it, was to let beginners have a starting point for their programs >with some 'software engineering' type data (what has worked, what has failed, >what has worked after several failed attempts, etc (by reading main.c >carefully). > >What I have done, intentionally though it may be, is to wreck a couple of >chess tournaments already. Because now there are at least _two_ programs >that are essentially crafty, with a few minor changes (IMHO). Which means >beginners are competing directly with me, without knowing it. And that can >definitely be discouraging. IE if everyone had had a chess 4.x clone, my >first chess tournament might have been my last. Because instead of winning >3 of my first 4 tournament games (ACM events were 4 rounds back in the 1970's) >I would have lost all 4, and probably given up. > >At present, it is easy to sit back and say "by giving your source, you have >done everyone a big favor." But I suspect that 'history' won't be nearly so >kind, unfortunately... >> >>Of course this is ALSO a commercial endeavour and then a problem arise. A kind >>of ambiguity if you want, that permeates the entire field. As you gives, other >>guys try to take; as you thinks in science and progress, other people thinks in >>money, fame, rewards of any kind. And this is OK but surely creates some >>collisions. You gives and Ed -or any other commercial programmer- hides, of >>course. How should he do otherwise? You give and a couple of guys take the >>weaponry of Crafty and get a personal rewards. Sad, but that does not diminish >>the general benefit the field has got from your gift. > >I disagree here. If a beginner gets wiped out by another beginner, it can be >discouraging. If he 'knew' it was "Crafty" this might be different, but not >knowing, he concludes "wow, I got killed, this isn't for me." The early chess >types had a different set of values that prevented this sort of nonsense. But >no more, it seems. Yes, most apples aren't bad. But the number is growing day >by day... sadly... > >I only regret that I unknowingly chose to 'start the ball rolling'... > > >>In fact that's the way progress go on all around. Do you know an example in any >>art or technology where you are not going to meet the same kind of >>superpositions and conflicts? And even so the most selfish guys that takes just >>thinking for themselves play a part in the great Opus because, in a way or >>another, they put some improvement in what they steal or copy, they stimulate >>even more creativity precisely to surpass the followers and cheaters, etc, etc. >>Private and selfish apropiation of an idea is unfair and ugly, BUT is part of >>the process trought which private ideas becomes publics and so wheels of the >>collective machinery towards progress. Had you kept secret your source code, >>these guys of Bionic were not capable of doing Bionic, sure, BUT the entire >>field would be poorer, less advanced. Is that the great thing just to avoid a >>bad use of something? >>Bob, let me say you again that you did well, with generosity and a wide and deep >>vision. You are part of the history, past and present, of this field; that is >>not going to change no matter what. And so this is no the moment to going back. >>Sad would be that you, hearing so many advices about not to give nothing >>anymore, take the advice and becomes a lesser man that you was and you are. You >>are the scientist and although scientis are human and, as any other human being >>looks for personal rewards, they distinguish themselves because the reward they >>try to get is the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the laymen >>capable of at least understand a bit of what they have done; that you already >>have it. Let other people trying to get forgetable prices in forgetable >>torunaments. Let other guys trying to earn a living with the secrecy of his >>products. Let other people confunding you with any other kind of programmer, >>jealous of HIS ideas. But you, let you to be yourself. >>Fernando
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.