Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:16:22 10/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 1999 at 06:10:30, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 29, 1999 at 22:23:25: > >>I agree with you ed. You have said at least one thing here that got me to >>thinking, and was the direct impetus for me to do the q-search pruning. I >>pointed out the 'best-move' problem. You got faster. Notice that 'trend'. >>Imagine how much progress would happen if we were _all_ doing this? > >Okay, let's stop the bickering... > >I like to add a few points to consider. > >There have been a number of unique features introduced by me first in >the Mephisto dedicated series and later in Rebel which I found back a >few years later in competitor programs. I don't complain about it as I >think it is only natural. > > >>I didn't imply that myself, I think someone else did. I implied that most >>commercial chess programmers 'lurk' and take what they can. And return >>nothing. > >>I only want to see the commercial guys join in a bit more. > > >This is unreasonable to ask. > >Joining public conversations like in CCC has a lot of side effects which >may force them to stay away or limit themselves to the read-only status. Then don't "join in" here. If you have something that you think is clever, release your program. After the 'new batch of releases' are out by everyone else, write it up and submit it to the JICCA. You get no questions, not bugging about release dates, etc. Remember that _I_ get the _same_ questions, criticisms, etc here also, and I am _not_ a commercial vendor. It just comes with the territory. > >#1. It costs lots of time. > >#2. Answer user questions. > >#3. Answers questions on subjects you don't like to talk about on that >moment such as a release date. Since you are a member you have to answer >it anyway. > >#4. Criticism on your product. It's natural but you must be able to handle it. > >#5. Obligation to join a discussion you don't like. Our current discussion is >a perfect example of this. As you said yourself: > > "I implied that most commercial chess programmers 'lurk' and take > what they can. And return nothing." > >IMO is not true and as an active member you are forced to give your opinion >as if you don't there is the risk people might think you agree especially >when things are repeated several times. > >#6. Not everybody by nature likes to express himself in public. > >#7. Commercial programs are often discussed and before you know you >are in the middle of a flame, maybe the main reason to stay away? Note that Hsu doesn't post here or in usenet, but he _does_ publish what he has done. There are non-interactive venues for doing this that bypass the flak, if that is considered an issue. I can agree that it can be a huge problem at times. > >Enough reasons not to post I would say so. > > >>The above had _nothing_ to do with 'using my code' and I don't see how you >>even think that it did. It had to do with publishing what you do, _after_ you >>get it to market and enjoy the benefits. IE after you release Rebel X this >>year, and everyone else releases NimzoX, Fritx X, etc... they can't change >>their programs, so what is the justification for not explaining the new ideas >>you had? > >I would be a fool doing so, and not only for commercial reasons. > >Some of us like to compete too, no? And maybe all? > >Isn't that natural? > >So you hide things because of that too. Yes... But with Cray Blitz I "hid" things for up to one year. But after the next CC event, we would _all_ disclose our new-found ideas. In Crafty, when I participate in WCCC events, I stop releasing source for 3-4 months to give more time to prepare a few secrets that no one can tune against. But then I release the whole thing right after the event ends... > >I don't feel obliged to contribute my sources or idea's in public >because you choose to do so. You have chosen to make your sources >public and a lot of people love you for that. But you can't force >others to do as you do and then if they don't do that, or don't >do that enough in your opinion, make them look bad in public for >reasons which are not so clear after some consideration. > >Ed I am simply trying to show that progress for _all_ would go faster. Or do you think that your ideas are good, but that there are no other good ideas to compensate you for exposing yours? That is the issue
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.