Interesting and real Talkchess posts...or not!

[Dave Mitchell]

With respect to Microsoft developing Windows - you're way off.

A windowed graphical OS was developed by PARC research center in Palo Alto, CA. They couldn't market it successfully, because they didn't have the market share - the clout, and there was no economy of scale, either. It was called STAR, and was aimed at high end work stations. It was very good-looking. Far better than Windows versions, prior to Windows XP.

Microsoft didn't steal anything, but they did hire some of the top programmers from PARC, to help them develop Windows.

You can't "steal" idea's. You can't patent an idea (it's happened but been invalidated in court). They are non-corporeal constructs. Only specific derivative works based on some idea or other, can be patented - you can patent your own design for a plow, but you can't patent the idea of tilling the earth.

A lot of people in this discussion have the wrong view of "stealing" idea's. It's quite laughable to think that you could somehow "steal" idea's from an open source version of Fruit, or any other program. Stealing code is another matter entirely.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

With respect to Microsoft developing Windows - you're way off.

A windowed graphical OS was developed by PARC research center in Palo Alto, CA. They couldn't market it successfully, because they didn't have the market share - the clout, and there was no economy of scale, either. It was called STAR, and was aimed at high end work stations. It was very good-looking. Far better than Windows versions, prior to Windows XP.

Microsoft didn't steal anything, but they did hire some of the top programmers from PARC, to help them develop Windows.

You can't "steal" idea's. You can't patent an idea (it's happened but been invalidated in court). They are non-corporeal constructs. Only specific derivative works based on some idea or other, can be patented - you can patent your own design for a plow, but you can't patent the idea of tilling the earth.

A lot of people in this discussion have the wrong view of "stealing" idea's. It's quite laughable to think that you could somehow "steal" idea's from an open source version of Fruit, or any other program. Stealing code is another matter entirely.

What has most people's panties in a bunch about this is the blank double-standard applied to, on the one hand, Rybka, and on the other hand, IPPOLIT. Both are demonstrably based on "stolen ideas". The difference being that IPPOLIT is based on stolen ideas derived from running Rybka under a debugger and figuring out how it worked, while Rybka is based on stolen ideas derived from examining the source code itself. Legally, ethically, there is no difference, but the one product is celebrated and the other assaulted. How is this appropriate?

[jury_osipov]

The first product to be sold and generate profits. The second product is distributed for free and reduced sales of the first product.

[Chris Whittington]

What profits? Computer chess revenues are minimal, declining since 1997. Most programmers quit because there is no money in it. Proof there's no money? If something has value, it is sold. If it has no value, it is given away for free.

[orgfert]

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.

You left out the story of cstal. Did Chris not tell it you?

[orgfert]

If something has value, it is sold. If it has no value, it is given away for free.

Giving something away for free doesn't mean the gift has no value. Did you never get anything of value as a gift? People give away their time and skill for free to open source software, like Linux. It's valuable. Habitat for Humanity build homes with donated labor and money. The product they created is valuable to its recipients.

[jury_osipov]

What profits? Computer chess revenues are minimal, declining since 1997. Most programmers quit because there is no money in it. Proof there's no money? If something has value, it is sold. If it has no value, it is given away for free.

Maybe it is true for most programmers except Vasik/Rybka.

See from the chessbase.com : the first shipment of Rybka 4 (31.05.2010):

[Tord]

What profits? Computer chess revenues are minimal, declining since 1997.

I'm not a commercial programmer, but I believe that the opposite is true: It has never been easier to earn money from computer chess than now. However, for some bizarre reason, most commercial programmers keep trying to sell UCI engines, and ignoring the platforms where the real money is: Mobile devices. The market for chess programs for mobile phones is huge. It has never been easier and cheaper to reach big amounts of customers than now.

As an example, Stockfish for iOS has been downloaded by 5479 customers over the last four weeks. Of course this is a free app, and the number of downloads would no doubt have been lower if I charged a dollar or two for it, but even if we assume that only half of the 5479 customers would have been willing to pay one dollar for it, it would add up to a substantial amount of money for just one month. And keep in mind that this app ships with an amateurish GUI hacked together in a few rainy weekends by someone with hardly any GUI programming experience and no artistic skill whatsoever. A truly professionally designed chess program would sell far better, especially if it is also professionally marketed.

This really is the golden age of computer chess, from a commercial perspective. Programmers just have to wake up and realise that nobody plays chess on a PC anymore.

[thorstenczub]

With respect to Microsoft developing Windows - you're way off.

A windowed graphical OS was developed by PARC research center in Palo Alto, CA. They couldn't market it successfully, because they didn't have the market share - the clout, and there was no economy of scale, either. It was called STAR, and was aimed at high end work stations. It was very good-looking. Far better than Windows versions, prior to Windows XP.

Microsoft didn't steal anything, but they did hire some of the top programmers from PARC, to help them develop Windows.

ATARI GEM came out 1984.
Windows 3.x came out 1990.

Gem from Digital Research mainly copied/stole from Apple Macintosh.
in those years, ATARI ST computers were way ahead of any PC system with Microsoft
software.
i could do desktop publishing on my 10 mhz ATARI ST.
it was WYSIWYG.
If you relate this with the software Microsoft offered at that time,
windows looked like a neanderthaler in relation with the modern homo sapiens.
Also DR-DOS was way better than Microsoft DOS.
Look how the atari ST version of Psion looked, in relation to the PC version.
the first serious chess program for PC with a graphics in hercules mode (black/white)
was REXCHESS by don dailey and Larry Kaufmann.
don dailey... you maybe remember.

[thorstenczub]

You left out the story of cstal. Did Chris not tell it you?

i have no idea what you talk about.
CSTAL has nothing to do with stealing. it has to do with much work and many many hours
tuning the parameters. in the end the program played like we wanted.
i think without chris beeing an outsider in computerchess, it could not have been done.
he thought DIFFERENT about computerchess. that was why it worked.

CSTAL was continued from CompleteChessSystem, a program with a database function, searched for moves and positions, came with thousands of games in a database, like chessbase products.

of course not for professional chess players but for the mass.
and complete chess system was a successor of other products chris made before.
Chess Simulator, Chess Champion, Chess Player and and and.