BB+ on the matter

[Don]

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

This is the same thing bugs bunny does to daffy duck when they are arguing about "duck season" or "rabbit season"

Computer chess is a subset of computer science. If you're claiming he made no contributions to computer science, then you're admitting he made no contributions to computer chess.

Oops.

I never admitted that. Read what I just said, "I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself." So did anyone claim that? Ooops.

I called him on this because it's dishonest - he is trying to limit the scope of what he has to defend. If he doesn't have to defend against any other kind of contribution, (such as the contribution that Deep Blue made to computer chess just by beating the world champion) then he has it much easier. Bob is very skillful at this kind of tactic, he defines things as he see's fit and then gets stubborn. He now thinks he has defined this argument to be only about computer science contributions.

It is funny that nobody mentions the contribution of Rybka to *chess*.

Miguel

Of course. I mentioned it recently because Rybka (as well as other programs) have contributed to opening theory as well as Grandmaster preparation.

[bob]

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".

Drop the hyperbole please. Vas clearly did not want his code to be easily disassembled because he wanted to make a living in computer chess.

That does not mean he did not contribute, it just means his contribution is less than if he decided to give it away for nothing and make a living doing something else. That would have involved a much larger sacrifice on his part, one that you haven't even made as you are able to make a comfortable living AND devote a huge amount of time to computer chess, even getting the resources of your university to do it. I think that is wonderful for you, but getting all self-righteous about it is rather embarrassing to watch.

Where am I getting "self-righteous"??? I simply stated facts. A scientist that contributes to his field does _not_ provide false data, and does provide accurate details. Very simple...

[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".

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

This is the same thing bugs bunny does to daffy duck when they are arguing about "duck season" or "rabbit season"

Then _what_ did he supposedly "contribute" to? That's not recasting the argument at all, it is simply clarifying it. What _else_ have we been talking about here? United Way? United Cerebral Palsy?

[bob]

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

This is the same thing bugs bunny does to daffy duck when they are arguing about "duck season" or "rabbit season"

Computer chess is a subset of computer science. If you're claiming he made no contributions to computer science, then you're admitting he made no contributions to computer chess.

Oops.

I never admitted that. Read what I just said, "I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself." So did anyone claim that? Ooops.

I called him on this because it's dishonest - he is trying to limit the scope of what he has to defend. If he doesn't have to defend against any other kind of contribution, (such as the contribution that Deep Blue made to computer chess just by beating the world champion) then he has it much easier. Bob is very skillful at this kind of tactic, he defines things as he see's fit and then gets stubborn. He now thinks he has defined this argument to be only about computer science contributions.

Deep Blue made _no_ contribution to "computer chess" by beating Kasparov. DB made a contribution by publishing ideas, results, etc... DB made a "contribution" to chess (not computer chess) by increasing interest. DB hurt CC more than it helped with regard to beating Kasparov. Fortunately their technical contributions were significant.

[bob]

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

This is the same thing bugs bunny does to daffy duck when they are arguing about "duck season" or "rabbit season"

Computer chess is a subset of computer science. If you're claiming he made no contributions to computer science, then you're admitting he made no contributions to computer chess.

Oops.

I never admitted that. Read what I just said, "I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself." So did anyone claim that? Ooops.

I called him on this because it's dishonest - he is trying to limit the scope of what he has to defend. If he doesn't have to defend against any other kind of contribution, (such as the contribution that Deep Blue made to computer chess just by beating the world champion) then he has it much easier. Bob is very skillful at this kind of tactic, he defines things as he see's fit and then gets stubborn. He now thinks he has defined this argument to be only about computer science contributions.

It is funny that nobody mentions the contribution of Rybka to *chess*.

Miguel

Of course. I mentioned it recently because Rybka (as well as other programs) have contributed to opening theory as well as Grandmaster preparation.

I have mentioned that already as well. But "chess" != "computer chess". Nor the broader field "computer science".

[Laskos]

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 would like to clarify a bit things here. I am paid for publishing my research papers. I mostly do what I like to do, because it maybe just happened so, or maybe because I found a place to be at peace with my profession. I do contribute to science, and generally, that is how science is done. If Bob got paid for his academic public research, and that research was pertaining to computer chess, that doesn't mean it is not a contribution to science.

If Vas wanted to "contribute" to general computer chess knowledge as a science, he could easily find a PhD program to publish his research as a PhD thesis. He would have been paid for that as a research assistant. He could have continued his research pursuit in academia, and got paid for that, nothing wrong with this. He didn't do so.

Kai

[mhull]

I would like to add one observation to this, that I know you don't have a problem with but some people do - the Deep Blue team got payed for what they did, but I do not feel that has ANYTHING to do with the impact of their contribution. It doesn't go from a great contribution to zilch just because they feed their families doing this work.

And throwing money into the equation minimizes everyone. It minimizes you because suddenly whatever you earn as an associate professor has to be deducted from the value of your contribution? That is just nonsense to me.

I qualified my remarks giving the example of paid work on open source programs or publishing how your program works. But just taking the money and giving you a black box, that's not a contribution because nothing is being contributed to the body of knowledge.

[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.

I don't agree to this redefinition of what a contribution is. His contribution to actual computer science is very small I agree, but many people on the forum agree with me on this, that his contribution to computer chess in general is non-trivial.

His contribution to computer chess has been <nil>. You can make a case for a contribution to chess in general, but not to computer chess.

Deep Blue was HUGE contribution to computer chess that goes way beyond a few papers they wrote (the papers have have very little impact on modern chess programs, certainly much less than Shannon, Thompson and others.) The biggest contribution Deep Blue made was in changing people attitudes and generating a great deal of interesting in computer chess.

I would like to add one observation to this, that I know you don't have a problem with but some people do - the Deep Blue team got payed for what they did, but I do not feel that has ANYTHING to do with the impact of their contribution. It doesn't go from a great contribution to zilch just because they feed their families doing this work.

I am not concerned about whether anyone gets paid or not. This is about taking ideas from others, improving them, and then giving the improvements back so that others can repeat this. If one takes, one should responsibly give back something. Or at least that's the way most of us view this. I realize you have never been an "open source" programmer, always being on the commercial side, which has likely biased your view in that direction. I am certainly biased in the other direction because I enjoyed the fruits of open discussion for so many years before commercial interests sort of "took over"...

And throwing money into the equation minimizes everyone. It minimizes you because suddenly whatever you earn as an associate professor has to be deducted from the value of your contribution? That is just nonsense to me.

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.

Tough. Again, if you take from the public domain, you should give back. Quid pro quo and all that...

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.

Then you need some grammar lessons. I have not "slammed everyone who feeds their family writing chess software." I have simply pointed out that if you take public domain stuff and use it, you have a responsibility to reciprocate. Don't want to give? Don't take. Particularly if you take source code from a public domain program or a GPL'ed program, which is even worse.

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.

Hsu and Cambpell both told me in person that it was doubtful that SE really helped their program. For most people it never worked.

were you not claiming that a very crippled version of SE helped your program when I was doing this silly HT-singular test a month or two back? I don't think they can accurately say whether SE helped or not since they did so little testing, particularly for DB2.

What people are using now and was measured in Stockfish to be worth very little is something that is significantly different that anything they did.

Something much worse. And there are other implementations that appear to provide gain, such as what was done in Ferret.

I don't know anything about layered parallel search and I have a top program. We used parallel search at MIT before Deep Blue.

I'm not taking about Belle, and none of the the top PC programs are using hardware innovations anyway.

Can you spell "hydra"? Someone is busily working on a hardware implementation of Crafty's time-critical code as a project at another university. Etc...

The work on eval tuning is bogus. There was nothing particularly innovative about it, but computer chess evaluation is notorirously difficult to automate. I think there have been some successes, but not the Deep Blue way.

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.

Thank you. I agree 100 percent with this and in fact I don't view payment as having anything to do with it. We all get payed in many different ways and this is a ridiculously materialistic viewpoint that we only do things for money. Every job I every had I tried to work hard at and I gave a lot - not just for the money.

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 know that you did this voluntarily, but my point is that you had the luxury of doing this while still being able to make a living in computer chess. Not everyone has this luxury and it's wrong to claim someone is a non-contributor just because they want to be able to feed their families doing something they love.

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.

Again, I believe their "paper" contribution is really minor compared to their "real" contribution which you don't acknowlege.

Let me put it this way, if we are to judge the Deep Blue team based only on their published papers, then they are pretty low on the list. But I don't view it that way and I don't think you should either.

[mhull]

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

You made that claim about his contribution to computer chess, which is a subset of computer science. Are you revising your statement now?

[Graham Banks]

His contribution to computer chess has been <nil>. You can make a case for a contribution to chess in general, but not to computer chess.

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).