I can help you with your memory. When I asked you why they could act the way they did against Kasparov, because, I raised my digit, they are scientists after all, you simply explained to me, that in this case that wouldnt oblige them to behave like sober scientists BECAUSE at first they had signed a contract with IBM and therefore IBM would tell them what to do. Now I turn around that argument and ask you why you behave here like a naive scientist who debates with others how this or that muswt be understood in Vas' program as if you were in class and had an academic discource or a lecture with students. Doesnt look decent IMO.bob wrote:Rolf, believe what you want to believe. Someone asked a _factual_ question. I gave a _factual_ answer. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe that or not. This is a topic for chess programmers more than anything, because _we_ understand what an engine reveals about its internal design when it displays data at the end of a search. And we also realize that if that is the one thing that sets you apart from the rest, then certainly you want to keep it to yourself. I have kept _many_ things to myself until after a major event has completed, because I wanted to have my new idea as an advantage, knowing that others had come with their new ideas as their advantage.Rolf wrote:bob wrote:Sorry, but I simply answered a question that was asked. Nothing more, nothing less...Titu wrote:
All of a sudden Vas comes to the computer chess and beats programs (20-0) that been around 30 years. And Vas does it in his own way. For some author this can be frustrating. Instead of showing any sort of acknowledgment for Vas, who has taken computer chess to a new level, lets pounce on the only thing that can be pounced on (compared to author's own program) every time, time and time again.
In my eyes an academic who writes this must follow a dishonest path of agenda. Because there is no such thing as unconditional answering without hidden motivation. And by chance I remember the true reason for your sort of anti-talk against Vas. You've told me yourself time ago.
But once someone that understands engine design gets interested, it is _very_ difficult to hide new ideas for a long time. I explained my book-learning approach and wrote a paper about it. But anyone could have figured out the basic ideas with just the executable file and the ability to play some games. And when you think about how it works, if you understand it at all, you'd see how easy it would be to figure it out even if you didn't understand it initially.
So there is no motive involved in my answering a question, other than the motive to actually answer it and move on..
That is an operational mode that I don't like, yes. But then I grew up in the fun years of computer chess where we all discussed ideas with each other and never had "secrets" that lasted beyond the next ACM or WCCC tournament. But what that has to do with this issue is beyond me as they are completely unrelated.
The reason for you is that Vas had visited CCC, discussed a lot, but above all learned a lot, just because others like you shared their knowledge, what is for you as academic professor the most natural thing to do unless you are not in a double bind with IBM people who cheated on Kasparov. Psychologically cheated him, but you didnt agree because yxou are not a psychologist and therefore dont undewrstand what I was talking about a research client who they cheated because suddenly they tranformed the research thing into a dirty secret service like process. You said but he was fool enough not to protect himself against such methods and I contradicted you by showing that there is no way for a proud chess master to suddenly reflect on cheating by otherwise sypathetic people. If Kasparov would have known this he wouldnt have played at all because without the nominally best player all their cheats wouldnt have made sense.
I can't follow that rambling line of thought. What does "making money with IBM" have to do with anything here? Hsu and Campbell were _always_ open with what they were doing, if that is your angle of attack. Hsu called and asked for a copy of my Dissertation as they were looking for ideas for their two-level parallel search. They sent me copies of things they had written. Things like the singular extension paper, etc... So where, exactly, is this going since they have been inactive for over 10 years now???
Many people have shown why your take against Vas is premature. You yourself didnt defend science against your friends when they were making money with IBM but you pretend that now you must do so in case of Vas and that doesnt simply fly. Becausae as I told you, Vas is probably, besides yourself, the most interactive programmer who does communicate with everyone who asks questions. He gave away for free most of his progs, just like you must do for academic reasons and the law. But he wouldnt be forced to do so but he does.
And what is that about "for academic reasons and the law?" I could sell a version of crafty if I wanted. In fact I helped a software company write a small chess program a year or so ago and was paid for it. Not a soul cares. So that I really don'[t follow. We have people that leave the university all the time and start private companies based on something they discovered.
And that is related to this exactly how??
But I contradict you for another reason too. We once had the debate about secret service and or being in service for the industry and I am certain that you know what this means for academics too. That then science is second ranked after the first which is military or the country's benefits.
Now you go _way_ too far. I don't "dislike" Vas. I have never even met him. I didn't like the non-commercial / commercial flip-flop. But it wasn't the first, and won't be the last. But "dislike" is absolutely _not_ the right word.
And now you dislike a programmer who has made extreme profits out of what he had learned here and nobody else could compete. And in such a situation instead that you admire him you begin to support people who ask nasty questions. While you know better than me that Vas' advantage isnt coming from his hiding of knodes or such nonsense. That is in truth only the propaganda method to nag Vas and to put him down. Because most here, except you, dont even know how exactly such a prograsm is working. Never could I read such stupid propaganda questions from other collegues so that I can conclude that this is a consequence of a sort of anti free speech debating culture.
What does "envy" have to do with this? I followed Slate and Atkin around for years before I passed 'em. I followed Ken for a few years before I passed him. I used that as motivation, not as envy, at least in a bad sense. So where does that come from?
It disturbs the whole group process if our senior big one puts himself into opposition aganst the best programmer around for reasons of low motivated envy - and that as an academic who should show himself as the best available role model of the field.
what is to "reconsider"? Nothing I wrote was speculation, it was all simple fact based on lots of analysis done by others when this story first broke. And no, I didn't "break" the story as I don't own a copy of any commercial program and won't own one. So I should "reconsider" stating facts and instead do exactly what???
Excuse me for the clarity but please try to reconsider your position.
This was written in one rush so that typos are inevitable. Sorry to all.
But since we have not enough time that you find your solutions for a changed behavior I count them for you which is normally bad psychology:
reconsider means that you simply dont teach how to reveil the secrets of Vas' program. That's a simple solution. Or you act like the IBM scientists who were paid to cheat on Kasparov. Similar to today if you tried to open Vas' secrets. Who wouldnt like to have you as a partner of the reveiling process?
I mean isnt it hypocricy that we forbid any mention of clones and where to get them and we tolerate that you support the public debate for a revelation of Vas' programming?
i already asked you 2 years ago if you would offer Vas a doctor title if he would write how Rybka functions?
Let me come to a clear description of a general dishonesty towards Vas.
You eearn your money bewcause you have a job at a university. Then you come here and on the base of your academic knowledge you try to destroy Vas' fundaments of his income which lies in his professional program. What would you say if you lost your income because of your debates here in CCC? Forget for a moments little incomparabilities.
I beg you again to reconsider. You can well tell people who ask that this wouldnt look well if you assisted in such revelations. Because this here isnt a seminary in a university. That you wouldnt want to destroy the money income of a friend.
