SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
Could you elaborate what you mean by "share secrets"? it is a bit contradictory unless you mean sharing it among a selected group, otherwise it is not a secret.
SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
One can only avoid using "old" ideas(=secrets?) if one knows about them.
SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
Could you elaborate what you mean by "share secrets"? it is a bit contradictory unless you mean sharing it among a selected group, otherwise it is not a secret.
Miguel
By sharing secrets I mean making them public knowledge.
There are some good reasons for making e.g. open source engines, but IMO there are stronger reasons for not doing it. Like stated below, the right side has some value but the value of the left side is higher.
YMMV obviously, we could vote on it
PauloSoare wrote:What do you think about plagiarism in music? Just curious.
Now, if we take Brahm's 1st symphony (last part) and say that it's a Beethoven derivative, it would be totally wrong. As Brahms said "every idiot can hear this Beethoven theme" (or similar). There is a specific meaning to that theme.
As for polystylists like Schnittke (died recently), with reusable pieces and rewritten contrapuncti, one has to decide for himself. Who would accuse Prokofiev for his neo-Calssicism? In music nowdays the problem of charlatanry (most minimalists for example) is much more present.
I could write on and on, but this is OT.
Kai
OK, thanks. I do not understand music as you. But it was what I thought, there is plagiarism in music and many other activities.
SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
Hahahaha, if the science was as you describe CC here, then we would have infant mortality 300/1000 instead of 5/1000, average life-span of 40 years instead of 80. The Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around us. Etc., etc., etc. Do you want to have progress or sub-chimp CC society? Even chimps pass tool use from generation to generation, without asking for credit or keeping secrets.
Kai
Chess engine development is not science to start with...
Anyway, sharing information in science is critical, but giving credit is paramount. So, I do not have problems with point 3 in any case, science or not. Therefore, I absolutely agree with point 2, unless 3 applies.
SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
Hahahaha, if the science was as you describe CC here, then we would have infant mortality 300/1000 instead of 5/1000, average life-span of 40 years instead of 80. The Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around us. Etc., etc., etc. Do you want to have progress or sub-chimp CC society? Even chimps pass tool use from generation to generation, without asking for credit or keeping secrets.
Kai
Chess engine development is not science to start with...
Miguel
If you want efficiency, it's science. Maybe you have some recreational goals or whatever, CC Olympiad maybe or IQ tester for programmers, I don't know. There are Math. and Phys. Olympiads, in the high school.
Kai
Last edited by Laskos on Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SuneF wrote:Manifesto for Ideal Chess Engines Development
---------------------------------------------
In the sprit of honesty, good sportsmanship
and legality of use we declare the following:
* Invent new ideas rather than reuse old ideas
* Implement yourself rather than copy from others
* Give credit rather than taking credit
* Keep secrets rather than share secrets
While there is value in the items on the right
we value the items on the left higher.
Comments?
Hahahaha, if the science was as you describe CC here, then we would have infant mortality 300/1000 instead of 5/1000, average life-span of 40 years instead of 80. The Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around us. Etc., etc., etc. Do you want to have progress or sub-chimp CC society? Even chimps pass tool use from generation to generation, without asking for credit or keeping secrets.
Kai
Chess engine development is not science to start with...
Miguel
If you want efficiency, it's science. Maybe you have some recreational goals or whatever, CC Olympiad maybe or IQ tester for programmers, I don't know.
Laskos wrote:
If you want efficiency, it's science. Maybe you have some recreational goals or whatever, CC Olympiad maybe or IQ tester for programmers, I don't know.
Kai
That would be closer to engineering.
Miguel
PS: My goals are completely irrelevant.
I don't quite understand, the research in engineering is qualitatively different form the research in physics? I know of many doing both (in fact one was the guy with the largest grants, we were poor theorists). And CC with the Elo goal seems more like a hard science and fundamental research.
Laskos wrote:
If you want efficiency, it's science. Maybe you have some recreational goals or whatever, CC Olympiad maybe or IQ tester for programmers, I don't know.
Kai
That would be closer to engineering.
Miguel
PS: My goals are completely irrelevant.
I don't quite understand, the research in engineering is qualitatively different form the research in physics? I know of many doing both (in fact one was the guy with the largest grants, we were poor theorists). And CC with the Elo goal seems more like a hard science and fundamental research.
Kai
IMO testing all these alpha-beta searchers,each with his small difference in constellation, against each other for the biggest elo is applying science,not science.
F. Bluemers wrote:
IMO testing all these alpha-beta searchers,each with his small difference in constellation, against each other for the biggest elo is applying science,not science.
Do you think that all fundamental research papers are more abstract than 50 Elo increase heuristic at top level?
