Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:47:36 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 05:49:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 02:23:47, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 30, 1999 at 10:16:22: >>> >>>>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. >> >>Unreasonable to ask. >> >>Not everybody likes to write for a magazine. Writing in CCC is easy, some >>quick notes and that's it. Writing for a magazine is quite different. I did >>it once (1984 I believe) for the dutch computer chess magazine "Computer >>Schaak" when I was asked to explain about Rebel's selective search and >>my own invented A/B algorithm because everybody was surprised to see Rebel >>hitting 6 plies on a TRS-80 1.77 Mhz. >> >>I hated it. I hated it because after 3-4 days of hard work the editors told me >>they didn't understand the contents and they wanted me to do it all over. Later >>much later after version 4.0 (and with the help of the editor) the article was >>ready for publication and frankly I must say that it looked a lot better than my >>first try. I said never again. The ICCA has asked my several times to >>contribute which I kindly refused for the above reason. >> >>You know, writing good articles requires some talent. I know I don't have it. >> >> >>>>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 >> >>Oh yes, if all would open their sources we would have a super breakthrough >>in computer chess. >> >>In Holland we call this "a shot for open goal" :) >> >>Ed > >After reading this long "bickering" thread, I don't think it makes any sense at >all to deny that commercials owe a great deal to the research and publications >of non-commercials, from alpha-beta to null-move. A case has been made about who >gave null-move as used today, but even if the publication of Chrilly Donninger's >paper was the direct source of information for commercial programmers, Chrilly >himself would have developed his null-move implementation after the findings and >publications of others. So directly or indirectly the level of achievement of >today's commercial chess programs would not have been possible without this body >of knowledge provided by "amateurs", which by the way is the wrong word that has >been used in this discussion to refer to non-commercial chess programmers. >Programmers, freaks like me and end-users should be grateful to them. > >On the other hand, even if I understand and even sympathize with Bob's >frustration about commercial programmers not publishing their findings, I think >that his idea of asking commercials to release all information after a year is >not realistic. In the first place, I am not sure that they make significant and >steady progress every year. Secondly, even if they make this progress one year, >they have no guarantee that during the next year they would find noticeable >improvements, so they must save for a rainy day. Finally, the "let's put >together what we all know" has been traditionally the goal of University people, >but never of the industry, and commercials are industry. It is like criticizing >commercials for being commercial. > >So I find not reasonable that commercials deny what they owe to researchers and >as unreasonable that researchers demand the industry to act as if they were not >industry. > >Enrique I think even industry is not that secret. As I mentioned every microprocessor manufacturer has released internal technical details very quickly, so that they get 'on record' as the inventor of a specific idea. As I said I have video cassettes of lectures given by each microprocessor manufacturer (by members of the design team in fact) as specific microprocessor architectures were released. Alpha, HP-PA, IBM SP, Intel, etc... And the journals are full of their reports.
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.