BB+ on the matter

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.

A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...
You just disqualified yourself from man and dog category.

Oh damn!

You guys are killing me....

[Don]

This is getting pretty twisted.

I have done what I have done for reasons.

(1) I enjoy chess, and more specifically computer chess. I've received a lot of enjoyment from it over the years. I have made many friends, played in lots of interesting tournaments, etc.

(2) I received lots of help from the likes of Kozdrowicki (coko), Slate and Cahlander (chess 4.x), Thompson (Belle), Greenblatt (mackhack), etc.

(3) as a result of (2) I felt it only reasonable that I make whatever I discover public, as they did with their work, in order to help others make additional progress in the field.

I do, and always have, considered it to be "shady" to take from others and return nothing at all. I have said that many times. It is not illegal. But it is a behavioural model I would not ascribe to.

You make contributions to computer chess, but you also get payed for this research, so before you get too self-righteous and self-congratulatory I think everyone here needs to be reminded of that.

By some of the definitions that have bandied about here, they makes you a NON-CONTRIBUTOR.

I personally think that is wrong, but in order for your (admittedly) wonderful contribution to be considered valid we are going to have to use a more reasonable definition of what a "contribution" really is.

I'm sure your definition is going to "expand" to include what you are doing for computer chess and allow for monetary contributions (which it should) but it's going to "squeeze" out people who do not have the luxury you have of being able to give away their product for free and still be able to make a living at it.

And you have slammed everyone who feeds their family writing chess software for a living or makes any other product that is in some way based on existing technology (which all products are) and yet do not give it away for free and I personally think that is very offensive.

We should also talk about Deep Blue, do you feel they made much of a contribution to computer chess? If so, what is the basis of that contribution? I think their contribution was HUGE but I think it's going to require yet another expansion of the word "contribute" because I know that I never got a copy of Deep Blue to play with (not for free and not for money) and there was nothing open source about it and they got payed for this.

[bob]

It does mean to _supply_ _something_. Clearly to computer science and computer chess in particular, it has supplied _nothing_ except a strong chess engine, in the form of a "black box". So say whatever you want, but do not say it has contributed to computer chess.

You are mistaken. It raised the standard. It raised the standard of ability/strength, it raised the standard of what can be achieved within a year, and it raised the standard of chess analysis. It did not add to the knowledge of the science, but not only did no one state this, but Don, Dann, and others have explicitly distinguished there are all manners of contributing that do not involve selflessness.

"raising the standard" doesn't contribute a thing. Had Rybka not come along, computer chess would have progressed just as well. It has been doing that since the 60's. Ken contributed by providing ideas and algorithms, not just by creating 1980 Belle searching at the unheard-of speed of 160K nodes per second.

Anyone can walk up to the high-jump pit and "raise the bar". But it took someone like Fosbury to develop a new approach _and_ show it to the world to actually contribute to the sport. To contribute to "science" you have to supply "ideas" or "methodologies" or "recipes" or whatever.

I don't buy the "contribution" concept you are proposing. If I build an innovative engine with features undiscovered to date, which produces 2x the horsepower of any other engine in its class, and I hide that engine inside a black box and drag race with it. I contribute to the sport of drag racing only because I make the races more interesting for the spectators. I have contributed _nothing_ to the science of drag-racing unless I let everyone look inside the box to see what I did. Then we begin to make more progress as others refine my ideas even further...

[bob]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented that the word contribution is not philanthropism, but means to add, thus Rybka, which is the subject here, has added to the field.

All Rybka has _added_ is another very strong program. It has added _nothing_ to the body of science applied to computer chess.

It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.

Couple of points.

(1) Vas went to great lengths to hide his ideas. Bogus node counts. Bogus search depths. Bogus PVs. So he was the antithesis of a "scientist" in that regard.

(2) He did not release the details. Some went to great trouble to reverse-engineer his code, something that he would likely address if he could go back in time and re-engineer his software protection by using some sort of on-the-fly decryption or whatever.

That's my only point in this debate. To say that he contributed to the science of computer chess is simply an improper use of the word "contribute".

[Michael Sherwin]

A contribution can be indirect. In the case of Rybka the indirect contribution was to set a goal for others to achieve. Now there are programs stronger than R3 that happened in less time than it would have happened if there was no R3.

As I said up there not many ppl buys that pure speculation. It's just a pathetic argument in vain attempt to justify Vas's "contributions".
I can speculate completly opposite - for example since Rybka was so much stronger many authors lost their motivation and confidence (some even started seeing Vas as god, and you know, you can't compete with a divine being ) and that slowed progress a lot.
And there is no way you'd be more right than me...
As a matter of fact, there are quite a bit of examples that confirm my argumentation. For example if you take best leagues in football (for USA ppl soccer) in Europe you will see that leagues where one team dominates from year to year are much weaker than leagues where you have several more less equal competitors (for example Bundesliga vs. Premiership)

Some gave up. Some worked harder. Why can't both of these be right?

They can of course. It's just that we can't know which outcome would have bigger influence on computer chess. Therefore, it is not a valid argument for claiming contribution.

Therefore, it is not a valid argument for denying a contribution. Contributions can be negative or positive. Negative contributions do not hurt as much as one good positive contribution can help advance computer chess. The ones that gave up were on average the ones that would not have made a science advancing contribution anyway. The ones at the top that are the most talented were challenged to catch up and I believe that they have done a good job. Tom King, author of Francesca said that he came back to chess programming partly because of Rybka. That is an example of a positive contribution. On the other hand if someone that gave up was deprived of an 'ah ha' moment that would have created the next super engine by now then the overall contribution may be negative. That is by far the less likely though!

I understand your position. I just think that the logic of it is just a little unbalanced.

[mhull]

The single word is the one you are twisting to mean exclusively what you wish it to, ignoring the overwhelming freight and definition in modern usage that disagrees with you.

That's not correct. The freight is clearly seen in the synonyms (Merriam-Webster): alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy.

[bob]

This is getting pretty twisted.

I have done what I have done for reasons.

(1) I enjoy chess, and more specifically computer chess. I've received a lot of enjoyment from it over the years. I have made many friends, played in lots of interesting tournaments, etc.

(2) I received lots of help from the likes of Kozdrowicki (coko), Slate and Cahlander (chess 4.x), Thompson (Belle), Greenblatt (mackhack), etc.

(3) as a result of (2) I felt it only reasonable that I make whatever I discover public, as they did with their work, in order to help others make additional progress in the field.

I do, and always have, considered it to be "shady" to take from others and return nothing at all. I have said that many times. It is not illegal. But it is a behavioural model I would not ascribe to.

You make contributions to computer chess, but you also get payed for this research, so before you get too self-righteous and self-congratulatory I think everyone here needs to be reminded of that.

By some of the definitions that have bandied about here, they makes you a NON-CONTRIBUTOR.

I personally think that is wrong, but in order for your (admittedly) wonderful contribution to be considered valid we are going to have to use a more reasonable definition of what a "contribution" really is.

"Contribution" is something given to improve something, in this case science. You can improve something, or you can improve it and then contribute that improvement to the body of knowledge to advance the science. Improving something is not contributing. Unless you reveal the details of the improvement so that others can use those ideas and then possibly improve them further.

I'm sure your definition is going to "expand" to include what you are doing for computer chess and allow for monetary contributions (which it should) but it's going to "squeeze" out people who do not have the luxury you have of being able to give away their product for free and still be able to make a living at it.

And you have slammed everyone who feeds their family writing chess software for a living or makes any other product that is in some way based on existing technology (which all products are) and yet do not give it away for free and I personally think that is very offensive.

We should also talk about Deep Blue, do you feel they made much of a contribution to computer chess? If so, what is the basis of that contribution?

Let's see:

(1) Singular extensions. Something most seem to be using in some form or other today.

(2) layered parallel search.

(3) hardware innovation by using project MOSIS to put belle on a single ASIC chip, and then to later improve the design significantly. Not to mention the improvements to the basic Belle search to get rid of the stack.

(4) work on eval tuning.

And they published everything along the way. Sounds like "contributions" to me since they published new ideas that any could (and most did) use. One can contribute even if he gets paid. For example, I certainly don't get "paid" to release the source of Crafty. I did it because others did it in the 1970's and it helped me along the way.

I think their contribution was HUGE but I think it's going to require yet another expansion of the word "contribute" because I know that I never got a copy of Deep Blue to play with (not for free and not for money) and there was nothing open source about it and they got payed for this.

But they did _publish_ their ideas so that anyone could use them... That contributes to the science of computer chess. Remaining silent, obfuscating data to disguise algorithms and such does _not_ contribute a thing. And can actually hurt in some ways.

[Michael Sherwin]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented that the word contribution is not philanthropism, but means to add, thus Rybka, which is the subject here, has added to the field.

All Rybka has _added_ is another very strong program. It has added _nothing_ to the body of science applied to computer chess.

It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.

Couple of points.

(1) Vas went to great lengths to hide his ideas. Bogus node counts. Bogus search depths. Bogus PVs. So he was the antithesis of a "scientist" in that regard.

(2) He did not release the details. Some went to great trouble to reverse-engineer his code, something that he would likely address if he could go back in time and re-engineer his software protection by using some sort of on-the-fly decryption or whatever.

That's my only point in this debate. To say that he contributed to the science of computer chess is simply an improper use of the word "contribute".

But, he did post about most of his ideas before he became so disgusted with this place that he left. I know he did. I read them.

[Albert Silver]

The single word is the one you are twisting to mean exclusively what you wish it to, ignoring the overwhelming freight and definition in modern usage that disagrees with you.

That's not correct. The freight is clearly seen in the synonyms (Merriam-Webster): alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy.

Only because one of the definitions of contribution leads to those synonyms.

[bob]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented that the word contribution is not philanthropism, but means to add, thus Rybka, which is the subject here, has added to the field.

All Rybka has _added_ is another very strong program. It has added _nothing_ to the body of science applied to computer chess.

It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.

Couple of points.

(1) Vas went to great lengths to hide his ideas. Bogus node counts. Bogus search depths. Bogus PVs. So he was the antithesis of a "scientist" in that regard.

(2) He did not release the details. Some went to great trouble to reverse-engineer his code, something that he would likely address if he could go back in time and re-engineer his software protection by using some sort of on-the-fly decryption or whatever.

That's my only point in this debate. To say that he contributed to the science of computer chess is simply an improper use of the word "contribute".

But, he did post about most of his ideas before he became so disgusted with this place that he left. I know he did. I read them.

Provide specifics. I've been reading here for years and do not recall anything other than vague comments. And then there is the red-herring (obfuscation) issue to deal with. That is not the action of a "contributor".