tomgdrums wrote:
To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.
And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.
And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!
Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).
At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.
bob wrote:But most "authors" want a fair competition without clones/derivatives, where everyone writes their own program and then we compete head-to-head with each other on as level a playing field as we can define...
This position is not an obvious majority opinion anymore from the tri-ennial ICGA meeting this week where this was a lengthy agenda point. A fair group of participating programmers present have expressed they want the rules to be updated. One line of thinking is that attribution plus added value should be sufficient to compete, instead of 100% originality.
bob wrote:But most "authors" want a fair competition without clones/derivatives, where everyone writes their own program and then we compete head-to-head with each other on as level a playing field as we can define...
This position is not an obvious majority opinion anymore from the tri-ennial ICGA meeting this week where this was a lengthy agenda point. A fair group of participating programmers present have expressed they want the rules to be updated. One line of thinking is that attribution plus added value should be sufficient to compete, instead of 100% originality.
That's sad, actually. It will contaminate the gene pool if accepted.
I would love to see THAT war, cloned or not. I cannot care less about the preposterous discussion of people that have engines with 100 or many more LESS elo points programs and still insist "their" program has been COPIED.
A copy is something equal to the copied thing. If better, it is not anymore a copy.
Or said differently: one thing is to make a copy, another is to do something with previous stuff from other entity. BTW, is the way science go on.
Maybe some guys should have told the original authors, pay something or whatever, BUT the fact is that no matter what incorrect thing they committed , the product is a new one.
So...
Adam Hair wrote:Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).
At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.
The adulation is built in the title of the event.
As for the money, commercial engines use the title very actively for marketing purposes. For example on the Shredder home page the word "world champion" appears about 20 times.
If you don't want justified remarks from chess fans that the winner cannot even remotely be considered the best engine on the planet, don't call your event a "World Championship". Call it, for example, the "Superior Chess Author Meeting".
tomgdrums wrote:
To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.
And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.
And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!
Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).
At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.
Are you serious bro
So your post literally means to hell with the computer chess fans....
Well let me tell you something,these computer chess fans are the same people who buy these commercial chess products so their opinion and their wishes count whether you like it or not....
And another thing bro regarding that we should be grateful that they share with us,share what exactly
Aha,I get it,the extremely bad coverage of the event,the twisted hypocrite rules of the tournament & the laughable title they award....
Get real bro
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
fern wrote:I do not care. Doped or not, I want to see them running. Don't you?
Fern
BTW, IF an engine go faster because it is doped as you call-it, then by definition is not anymore a clone, but something different. And if it is not so, then no doping advantage.
Fern
If you steal a car and make it faster, they will NOT let you enter it in the grand prix.
You fall in a logic trap called "petition of principle".
You assume, with the car stolen of your example, that there was a robbery. But in this case such is what must be examined first.
fern wrote:I would love to see THAT war, cloned or not. I cannot care less about the preposterous discussion of people that have engines with 100 or many more LESS elo points programs and still insist "their" program has been COPIED.
Houdini is the best engine to date regards
Fern
Fern, I agree with you but I have a proposal for good. Of course the people in Bob's team have a point that cant be refutated by handwaving alone.
A sort of violation of strict rules has been done on several levels, but your point is also valid.
So I would like to make the proposal that a sort of penalization is put upon the wrongdoers who have violated the orders, but this measure cant go in extremes of a life ban.
At least Vas should be granted a general respect because of his yearlong improving of his engine.
IMO it's high time for such a solution, now the ICGA has shown that it can have its way and JUNIOR has won another Wch title although its shape is no longer of the same class as Houdini or Rybka. Let's try to get over it. Without artificial claims that JUNIOR now is the best engine. it is NOT.
Would you support my proposal?? Thanks.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
