OpenChess

TalkChess.com
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:11 am
Post subject: Re: BB+ on the matter

'Robert Hyatt' wrote:
His (Vasik Rajlich) contribution to computer chess has been <nil>. You can make a case for a contribution to chess in general, but not to computer chess.

Graham Banks wrote:
I think that's a pretty sad statement to make about a fellow chess engine author.
Personally I believe that every programmer who has written a legitimate engine for others to use, enjoy and gain benefit from has made a worthwhile contribution to our hobby (which happens to be computer chess).

Don Dailey wrote:
This Jerk '(reference Robert Hyatt)' has also slammed me and offends all commercial programmers too with his calloused statements. I make a release version of Komodo whenever I feel I have made substantial improvement, I give it out absolutely free and because I don't write papers or give away the source code I'm not making a contribution. His arrogance and self-righteousness is just plain hurtful and I almost posted something on the group but thought better of it. I'm really trying to control myself here.

Norman Schmidt wrote:
Yes, of course Don...
Bob Hyatt is a 'Jerk'!? and you and Graham Banks are the guiding lights of computer chess...
thanks much for this 'contribution'.
you have me absolutely convinced.
your agenda is perfectly clear...
I plan on purchasing Komodo (not!) w/ my next paycheck

Don Dailey wrote:
I have asked for my last post to be removed and I apologize for the contents, I was trying to PM Graham and quoted this when the dog had to go out and I just got confused.
I also apologize to Bob for being so harsh.

Norman Schmidt wrote:
I'm sure many would also like to see the WikiLeaks releases deleted,
but the fact that your post was meant to be a PM doesn't detract...
(actually makes it worse IMHO)
what are you and Graham in collusion?

Don Dailey wrote:
I'm going to charge you triple, so get ready to cough up the big bucks.
You may have to purchase the next version if you even want it. I get the strong sense that I am just giving something away that is not truly appreciated, like a kid with a toy who is bored in 5 seconds. And if giving something away is not a contribution anyway, then why shouldn't I get payed for it?

Sun Dec 05, 2010 ~1:20 am
above posts deleted (apparently per Don Dailey request) by Talkchess moderation....
??

This?

Hyatt would never make it as a diplomat!

The big unanswered question to me is just why Hyatt believes that to be true?

Maybe he's looking at it from the perspective of academic research (a professor to the last!), and from that perspective, anyone who hasn't published research or at least their code, has done nothing for the pursuit of computer chess knowledge. Maybe he's also thinking about all the times that Crafty has been cloned, and claimed by somebody else, as their program. That has to leave a long standing bitter taste in your mouth.

But I don't believe that encompasses the whole spectrum of computer chess. There is a large base of CC fans, who make it all possible for research to continue, and chess programs to exist, outside a lab. Without the support of users, there would be no CC tournaments, no commercial programs, and no human vs computer matches, etc. There never would have been a Cray Blitz, either!

It may not be readily apparent to an academic like Robert, but without the support of users, CC would be going absolutely nowhere. Komodo, and all the other CC programs, support the CC users, whether they contribute to open source code and research papers, or not. The fact that they are free, is icing on our cakes, surely.

I again reiterate that being better to control my emotions is both a reason that I: a) post semi-anonymously, and b) don't post at TalkChess. I can understand Don Dailey's viewpoint and some of his ire at Bob, and applaud him for withdrawing his (accidental) comment and apologising for whatever mess it caused [and I'm not quite sure why this was all copied here, other than to harass them]. As a scientist, I must agree with Bob however, that the commercial guys (such as Naumov, SMK and VR) by-and-large really have purposed little to advance computer chess as a science, though having "role models" and "top dogs" for young Turks to hunt can also be useful to the field in general.

You can argue that VR has acted almost in an "anti-competitive" manner at times [there was a whole thread about this at Rybka Forum, maybe when Naumov quit due to R3 being "too good", or maybe when Rybka 2.x was made the new "free download" and was better than any non-Rybka product], but part of that is just a drive to be the best (for instance, hiring Noomen and LK). I think skipping the "Software" championship at the most recent WCCC was a poor decision, and I'm not sure anything beyond mealy-mouthed excuses was given for this. But I would say that this is more snooty than anti-competitive.

BB+ wrote: [and I'm not quite sure why this was all copied here, other than to harass them]

openess/transparency sought?
a rare glimpse behind the scenes at the corrupt CCC 'Good Old Boys' club?
an expose on the contemptuous/underhanded nature of a leading pro-Rybka/anti-Ippolit activist?

and most importantly...
it's the inaugural publication of my new computer chess site/service: CCCLeaks.org

don dailey is a good guy. bob hyatt is a good guy too.
they have both contributed much for computerchess, from my unimportant point of view as a user and tester. they are different type of guys.

i cannot imagine a computerchess world without bob hyatt or don daileys contributions. and more important, i don't WANT a computerchessworld without those guys.

... [and I'm not quite sure why this was all copied here, other than to harass them]...

For my part at least, the screenshot was posted because Kranium's initial post which has now been edited multiple times, seemed to be looking for it -- even the heading changed from "Talkchess posts deleted...?" to what it is now. But anyways it does now look petty and I certainly can remove the picture from where the link points to if needed.

Furthermore, I do have respect for Dailey though we can't see eye to eye on this matter of contribution. Here is a quote directly from the horse's mouth:

Vasik Rajlich wrote:Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

It is a bit of a pity that Rybka won't make the same contribution to the computer chess community, but at the moment I must also think about protecting my secrets. It's the eternal struggle for a computer chess programmer.

even the programming is an addiction, playing with the games, posting to the forums, it's a danger to your health, stay away .....

Chris Whittington wrote:even the programming is an addiction, playing with the games, posting to the forums, it's a danger to your health, stay away .....

Your chart looks a sort of rorschach diagram; perhaps an insight to your creative process.

chess is the game of the kings.
a philosophy.
there is no alternative to chess.

computerchess is the idea to find out how we can make
a mechanical system more perfect.

by pruning the search tree we emulate the "look ahead" humans have
when watching a chess board.
the competition of ideas is in computerchess.
some ideas get published. others stolen.
thats how world works in any field.

but it is a serious thing to steal ideas/or take them, put them in an
"own" product and claim: its my own invention.

then to sell this product.

very often this ends at court. we all remember,
or maybe not all ), how Microsoft stole the GEM GUI
stuff for their product WINDOWS from Atari.

when GEM/TOS was on the market, there was no mouse in DOS.
no graphical support. Gates stole all this and made windows 3.11.
ATARI went bancrupt. and microsoft survived.
we remember when the manager left APPLE and went to PALM
and "invented" (or shall we say: copied) the Palm Pre mobile.

worked like an iphone, behaved like an iphone. only that is was cheaper
and came from Palm. What happened ? Palm went (nearly) bancrupt and was
bought by HP.

We remember when Saitek was bought by a company called Mad Katz.
Or when H+G was bought by saitek. Or Fidelity was bought by H+G.

Saitek had a modular board system, that was much superior to the modular concept
H+G had invented. But they failed with their Leonardo/Galileo/Renaissance boards,
because they did not sell interesting modules. Instead of bringing out
Kaplans best ideas (pruning, interesting play) in the D++ module,
they hired Spracklen. Spracklen tried very long to port the Fidelity program to the Sparc
hardware. and failed. Then Winkler (boss of saitek) made the next mistake.
Instead of buying HIARCS in 1993, and replacing the Spracklen program in the SPARC
hardware with that of Mark Uniacke, he continued without a STRONG program and concentrated
on selling cheap hardware with frans morsch fritz-clones in H8 CPU hardware.
We all know that TASC had a superior hardware and intelligent board system.
but they failed with it.
when CXG copied the H+G wooden boards , and put the ported Mark V software from Mark Taylor into it, ported to 68000 platform (Cyrus 68000), it was no success.


so sometimes if you steal ideas, its no guaranty that this makes you a winner.


Apple stole the idea from Microsoft to make a Tablet PC. Microsoft failed with this concept because they always used their own OS.
When apple used their OS, it was a success.

Fabian Letouzey made a nice strong chess program. but he was not capable to
make it a market success. so he published the sources and left the building.
but others with more clever marketing and money handling, stole his ideas
and made their own more succesful business.

thats how the world works.

Would H+G still exist if they would not have bought Fidelity ?
Would Saitek still exist if they would have hired Uniacke to make the Sparc use Hiarcs?
Would Novag still exist if they would have used the Superconny program in the "I Robot" II machine ?

Would Atari still exist if their Gem Concept would not have been stolen ?
Would Fabian Letouzey still sell Fruit if he would have had a better marketing guy ?