Engine Originality vs. Engine Strength

[hyatt]

If you look at the definition for 'Original' you will be hard-pressed to name any engines that are 'Original'!

This is simply wrong. In the 60's when I started to work on my program called "blitz" what was there to copy? In the 70's? In the 80's? SO there _are_ original engines, of which Crafty is only one example. Not everyone copies source and then modifies it to create their "new" engine...

[Uly]

It's not about copying source, but about copying ideas.

[Charles]

If you look at the definition for 'Original' you will be hard-pressed to name any engines that are 'Original'!

Yes, that's why I sad "nothing is original", not as an insult to original developers, but as a claim like, if you build a new floating car, AND it has a steering wheel inspired by the steering wheel of normal cars, then that part of the car is not original, and thus, the whole product isn't.

Competition is ingrained in the human soul just as much as co0peration.

No, we are taught to compete as kids.

Otherwise there would be no sports ...

Sports could be played exclusively for fun. I don't get it, you're having a lot of fun playing a sport, but if in the last second you lose, then all the fun had didn't count?

My most memorable correspondence games have been lost ones, in where I learned a lot about myself, and improved. I also have a lot of fun in my won ones, but it's not an obsession.

You really think people should not be paid for hard work?

Money isn't necessary in a society with enough abundance, suppose there is enough food for everyone. Is there enough food for everyone as it is? (no, really poor people may not eat today), but the same food could be produced without exchange of money, of course, the system does not allow for this.

Without money you'd still have people like Tord Romstad or Robert Hyatt (and well, insert all developers of freeware chess engines here) doing computer chess because they love it, not because of the money.

The "Designing an analysis friendly Stockfish?" thread was a tremendous success, and all the people involved didn't receive any money for it, they just helped for the satisfaction of doing so.

Rybka went commercial because Vas wanted to make a living out of it, and allowed him to spend all his time doing it. Without the money problem, everything would have gone the same, but Rybka 1.2f, 2.3.2a and Rybka 3 would have been free, and Rybka 4 would have been much stronger.

I'm a graphic designer and I do it because I love it, I like designing graphics as much as playing a chess game. In most of cases I don't get paid for my work. Money isn't needed as an incentive.

So, money seems like an obstacle more than anything, it was a good system back when resources were scarce, now it enforces the scarcity so rich people accumulate more money. I can easily imagine society of the future looking at us as we currently look at cavemen.

You will never understand this -- but It is good when rich people get richer -- they employ poorer people and the poor get richer too. It hardly matters if the gap between the rich and poor increases.

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

Marxism is a flawed idea that leads to genocide when enforced by the government.

An ideal society will actually be quite the opposite from what you envision as ideal -- that is there will be be a large disparity between rich and poor - there will be NO government handouts (one of the major reasons for the current fiscal crisis in US) -- and everyone who works even the poorest will be better off than a comparable person living in a socialist country.

If someone creates something -- should be able to make a profit as long as there is a market for it. That is the key to innovation.

[Uly]

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

My logic says that people should be able to have a living without having to work as a garbage man or a doctor. Paid work is just modern slavery.

that is there will be be a large disparity between rich and poor

Without money, there is no "rich" or "poor". Currently the rich are people that either had fortune given to them at birth, or knew how to play the system game. Once you have enough money, you can put it to reproduce and get profits without moving a finger, while the poor has to work really hard and only gets enough to not die of hunger. It makes no sense.

If someone creates something -- should be able to make a profit as long as there is a market for it. That is the key to innovation.

People should create things to make the word a better place for society, not just for the profits. Innovation could happen still if creativity was freed to flow and not limited by the money system (people have to work 8 hours a day just to survive, they have no time left to create anything or innovate).

The dollar pyramid puts it well.



The rich people on the above part love the system, have the power and would do anything it takes to preserve the system as it is. The ones below have to work hard to earn a living, and follow the rules of the ones above, just because they got trained since being kids to do so and can't even imagine the world being different.

[Charles]

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

My logic says that people should be able to have a living without having to work as a garbage man or a doctor. Paid work is just modern slavery.

Where has this worked? It has been tried many times it cannot work.

In fact, it does not even work in nature.. No animal can survive without hunting for food ... that is the work -- to get food ...

[hyatt]

It's not about copying source, but about copying ideas.

No, the fruit vs rybka debate is solely about copying source.

[thorstenczub]

You will never understand this -- but It is good when rich people get richer -- they employ poorer people and the poor get richer too. It hardly matters if the gap between the rich and poor increases.

this nonsense is maybe existing in your mind. but not in reality.
You should read "people of the abyss" by jack london to get an idea about reality.

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

they both do important jobs.
imagine a society where the trash is not carried away, we all remember how this was once in italy when the workers were on strike. you can smell that this is not good.

Marxism is a flawed idea that leads to genocide when enforced by the government.

marxism ?
i thought that christianism was this flawed idea leading to genocide and holocaust.
interesting.

An ideal society will actually be quite the opposite from what you envision as ideal -- that is there will be be a large disparity between rich and poor - there will be NO government handouts (one of the major reasons for the current fiscal crisis in US) -- and everyone who works even the poorest will be better off than a comparable person living in a socialist country.

i guess you mix different words... marxism you said. socialist country you said.
and you believe that without a government or without control of a government,
a society would be fairer ??

we had this liberalism in economy, forced by the neoliberals, the bush clan etc.
and what was the result of this liberal market ?
it crashed down.

nobody controlled it.
it was a catastrophy.

If someone creates something -- should be able to make a profit as long as there is a market for it. That is the key to innovation.

but those who add the value of the product, should get enough from the profit too.
without workers, the boss of a company could not finish his product and sell it.

[thorstenczub]

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

My logic says that people should be able to have a living without having to work as a garbage man or a doctor. Paid work is just modern slavery.

exactly!

that is there will be be a large disparity between rich and poor

Without money, there is no "rich" or "poor". Currently the rich are people that either had fortune given to them at birth, or knew how to play the system game. Once you have enough money, you can put it to reproduce and get profits without moving a finger, while the poor has to work really hard and only gets enough to not die of hunger. It makes no sense.

exactly. i could not say it better.

If someone creates something -- should be able to make a profit as long as there is a market for it. That is the key to innovation.

People should create things to make the word a better place for society, not just for the profits. Innovation could happen still if creativity was freed to flow and not limited by the money system (people have to work 8 hours a day just to survive, they have no time left to create anything or innovate).

The dollar pyramid puts it well.



The rich people on the above part love the system, have the power and would do anything it takes to preserve the system as it is. The ones below have to work hard to earn a living, and follow the rules of the ones above, just because they got trained since being kids to do so and can't even imagine the world being different.

[/quote]

very true.
capitalism is a flawed idea.
it does not work. it only "works" if you can exploit people. create wars and dictatorship.

as a friend of me once wrote:

USA = Warfare state, permanent war. WW2 until fall of SU, Cold War fear, numerous peripheral wars. End of SU, new enemy needed, War on Terror or the 20 Years War it might be better called.


It's an unspoken conspiracy between the military industrial complex and the political class, it needs fear, war and threat of war plus a useful mass of client dictatorships around the world.


Egypt is just one example, but this is how it works ....


Dictatorship borrows dollars from USA (or has its own dollars if oil rich), USA prints those dollars, lends them to the dictatorship, but with strings attached, often they call it "aid", the dollars must be spent with USA companies, usually to buy high tech armaments, or it can be to buy bridges and prestige infrastructure (no matter, the client state population will pay the interest).


So you can see these these printed dollars being effectively laundered (like drug money) through the big USA corporations and back into the USA economy. But minus massive kickbacks, bribes and corruption within the dictatorship, and minus big profits and kickbacks within the USA itself to its political class. Plus the politicos KNOW when and what deals will be struck, because they "arrange" the deals, so they can play, or get their friends to play the massive profits via stock market prices. The amount of money involved is beyond your wildest imaginations and there's more money than even described above - the banks who arrange the loans and the money printing are on huge kickbacks let alone the interest payment stream.


And it all depends on creation of fear to drive the arms sales and the maintenance in power of suitable crony client dictators.


This, my friends, is how the world words. It's why Bush is rich, Blair has 15 million that we know about, Mubarak has a supposed 80 billion and and and. All payed for by the population of the client states, that's why they are poor and their leaders are stinking rich.


They call it corporate capitalism, capitalism designed for the big corporations and their bought political class. Both serve each other. Fear and war. Meanwhile go and watch TV, play Wii and don't think.

[thorstenczub]

According to your logic a garbage man should make the same as a doctor.

My logic says that people should be able to have a living without having to work as a garbage man or a doctor. Paid work is just modern slavery.

Where has this worked? It has been tried many times it cannot work.

In fact, it does not even work in nature.. No animal can survive without hunting for food ... that is the work -- to get food ...

you don't understand the idea.
people get enough to have a living without having to work for it.
and THEN they go and do some important work, because they find it boring NOT to do anything.
but in this case, they LIKE what they do, because they have the choice.
in a capitalistic society people have no choice and no alternative. they have to pay for things others commit/cause.
and they have to protestute themselves.
of course this makes people ill.
some go mad, others become politicians.
and again others dictators or murderer.

[Uly]

It's not about copying source, but about copying ideas.

No, the fruit vs rybka debate is solely about copying source.

I wasn't thinking about the fruit vs rybka affair when I wrote that, I was just thinking about the OP's question and poll, and about my definition of original, something like the dictionary's:

adjective "being or productive of something fresh and unusual; or being as first made or thought of"

or

adjective "preceding all others in time or being as first made or performed"

So, if the engine uses copied ideas like Null-move or Mini-max than it's not original at the idea level. At the code level things get blurry considerably, if two very different codes do the same and were written independently, originality is path-dependent.

Where has this worked?

AFAIK, in recent times society has never tried to work without money, all systems have relied on it one way or another. Can you imagine a world in where all the same productive events happen without the need of people exchanging green pieces of paper from one hand to another? It's hard, and it's not a night-day process, but it must be possible with enough abundance (do you need to pay to breath? No, because air is abundant, if there was not enough air, you'd have to pay for it).

And probably money would not disappear completely, but just at the core of the problem. You satisfy people's basic needs, and they have the choice of entering this chase the goose game or do something they want to do. Does the guy want a second last model car he doesn't really need? He can become the garage man.

in a capitalistic society people have no choice and no alternative.

Thanks for the support Thorsten, we agree and yeah, crime is a big problem in society, and most of it is related to money. In a truly advanced society the police wouldn't be necessary.