Have you decided why Vas

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderator: Ras

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by Rolf »

bob wrote:
Rolf wrote:
bob wrote:
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.
Sorry, but I simply answered a question that was asked. Nothing more, nothing less...

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.
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.

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..


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.
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.



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.
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???

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.

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.
And that is related to this exactly how??

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.
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.


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 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?


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.
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???
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.

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.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by bob »

[quote=Rolf]


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.

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.


[quote]

Again, I have no idea what you are rambling on about here. I certainly don't follow any possible point about "I earn my money because I have a job at a university". I do not see how where my job is has anything to do with this. If I worked for IBM, or even Bell South which I worked for in 1970, how would it make any difference whatsoever?

Next, where have I tried to "destroy" anything? Someone asked a question about why the numbers were "doctored". I gave a simple and direct answer to that question. Nothing more, nothing less. Answering a question with an answer than has already been posted _many_ times previously is not a method of destruction. It is a method of dessimination for information that someone requested.

This business of discovering the "tricks" or "features" of others is common. In science. In manufacturing. In designing. In archtecture. In you-name-it. Why would someone want to continue to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary. The hard work is going beyond the known. Absolutely nothing immoral about this. Other commercial programs came up with new ideas. I think Shredder was the first to use what are currently called "reductions". And the idea then leaked out. It will happen with Rybka, sooner or later, then everybody will use that feature and then someone will come up with something new and the cycle starts over.

And it is perfectly normal and healthy to have things work like that.

As for the "assisting" I don't do that, because I don't run windows applications in any form, and don't buy commercial chess programs either since I have one I can use whenever I want. So I don't know what that is all about either...
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by bob »

Rolf wrote:

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.

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.

Again, I have no idea what you are rambling on about here. I certainly don't follow any possible point about "I earn my money because I have a job at a university". I do not see how where my job is has anything to do with this. If I worked for IBM, or even Bell South which I worked for in 1970, how would it make any difference whatsoever?

Next, where have I tried to "destroy" anything? Someone asked a question about why the numbers were "doctored". I gave a simple and direct answer to that question. Nothing more, nothing less. Answering a question with an answer than has already been posted _many_ times previously is not a method of destruction. It is a method of dessimination for information that someone requested.

This business of discovering the "tricks" or "features" of others is common. In science. In manufacturing. In designing. In archtecture. In you-name-it. Why would someone want to continue to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary. The hard work is going beyond the known. Absolutely nothing immoral about this. Other commercial programs came up with new ideas. I think Shredder was the first to use what are currently called "reductions". And the idea then leaked out. It will happen with Rybka, sooner or later, then everybody will use that feature and then someone will come up with something new and the cycle starts over.

And it is perfectly normal and healthy to have things work like that.

As for the "assisting" I don't do that, because I don't run windows applications in any form, and don't buy commercial chess programs either since I have one I can use whenever I want. So I don't know what that is all about either...
User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by Rolf »

bob wrote: Again, I have no idea what you are rambling on about here. I certainly don't follow any possible point about "I earn my money because I have a job at a university". I do not see how where my job is has anything to do with this. If I worked for IBM, or even Bell South which I worked for in 1970, how would it make any difference whatsoever?

Next, where have I tried to "destroy" anything? Someone asked a question about why the numbers were "doctored". I gave a simple and direct answer to that question. Nothing more, nothing less. Answering a question with an answer than has already been posted _many_ times previously is not a method of destruction. It is a method of dessimination for information that someone requested.

This business of discovering the "tricks" or "features" of others is common. In science. In manufacturing. In designing. In archtecture. In you-name-it. Why would someone want to continue to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary. The hard work is going beyond the known. Absolutely nothing immoral about this. Other commercial programs came up with new ideas. I think Shredder was the first to use what are currently called "reductions". And the idea then leaked out. It will happen with Rybka, sooner or later, then everybody will use that feature and then someone will come up with something new and the cycle starts over.

And it is perfectly normal and healthy to have things work like that.

As for the "assisting" I don't do that, because I don't run windows applications in any form, and don't buy commercial chess programs either since I have one I can use whenever I want. So I don't know what that is all about either...
Just to tell you a few novelties. In Israel someone sat in prison because he had reveiled details of the Israelian Atomic Weapons Program. But you insist it's rambling if I warn you to participate in such talking about why and how Vas had veiled the output of his KN count? And you insist that you cant simply imagine why I would see problems with such a participation?

So, I want to ask you if you would also participate if someone from East Asia asked you - set the case that you knew something about the possibilities to fake originals with computer program aid - how this and that in the material of the original must be interpreted so that the cheating program could reveil the details to then being able to copy the original into the fake, then you would be pleased to explain that and so to answer the interesting and by far not criminal question?

You can insult me with what you prefer verbally, but you wont extinct the moral of my question how you as academic used your knowledge to harm the commercial basis of another computerchess guy, actually the best one around.

Bob, why are you so scrupulous to not engage another teacher for your classes during World Championships because you say you are academic in the first place - - and then you have absolutely no problem to forget the academic morals of science and you engage yourself in the forum activity to reveil the hidden secrets of a commercial programmer? How does this fit together without too many headaches?

Do you really feel morally justified if you talk with a guy like Burcham who insulted Vas as a cheater of his paying customers? Couldnt you at least demonstrate why the indication of nodes count is a cheat if based upon the program itself the output doesnt intentionally scramble the meaning? So if the logical rules are considered and well applied, where is the cheat if the output is appearing different to the competitors? To clarify that would be an honorable task for an academic teacher. But not explaining how to reveil the secrets of a program.

I have a little addition because I showed the debate to experts here in Germany. Question came how someone could be defamated because he went commercial with his program IF there were no rules integrated long before that would forbid the commercial exploitation of certain computerchess programming tricks or routines? Could you answer that? Why is Vas looking strange to you - sorry, my vocabulary is restricted in a foreigner speech, so dont accuse me that strange isnt the correct term, take whatever you prefer instead - if he took knowledge that was openly discussed here and refuses now to reveil all his new details of his program? What is wrong with what he does? What is it what makes you think or feel, that this isnt quite kosher?
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
User avatar
Sylwy
Posts: 4847
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: IAȘI - the historical capital of MOLDOVA
Full name: Silvian Rucsandescu

Re: A new jealousy attack !

Post by Sylwy »

Dr.Ex wrote:
A chess program can give all sorts of insight into what is going on. For example, if you do a real 6-ply search, and display the _full_ PV, it is not that hard to look at the output for specific positions and discover details about the search. You have already seen lots of positions that break null-move, as one example. If you don't want me to look at a 6 ply search (so that I know the basic search depth) to see what is happening, then you make it impossible for me to produce a 6 ply search. If you don't want me to have any idea of how much of your program is search and how much is evaluation, then hide the NPS, and the nodes searched, and the depth, and don't even show the complete PV. Now it is _very_ hard to figure out what is going on because you can't obtain enough information to figure out much.

I can't imagine any other reason.[/quote]

Rybka is IMHO a brutal effective and fast searcher. It is as dumb as Toga for example. It has very little knowledge about chess.

[d] 1k1r3r/1ppqb1pp/p1n1pp1n/3pPb2/BP1P1P2/2P1BN2/P5PP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 12

It thinks this position, which is easily won for white, is better for black.
Just like all other dumb engines like Toga etc. think it is better for black.
That says it all.

It is unfortunate that the game of Chess allows stupidity to prevail. We should just move on and search for another Board game where this can't happen.[/quote]


A question please :

If your assertion is true explain me please why is present Mr.Larry Kaufman in Rybka team and in what consist his work ?

Thank you !
Silvian
Dr.Ex
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:10 am

Re: A new jealousy attack !

Post by Dr.Ex »

I don't discuss with engine fanboys who feel personal attacked when someone points out certain flaws in a program.
Uri Blass
Posts: 10867
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Have you decided why Vas

Post by Uri Blass »

Dr.Ex wrote:
A chess program can give all sorts of insight into what is going on. For example, if you do a real 6-ply search, and display the _full_ PV, it is not that hard to look at the output for specific positions and discover details about the search. You have already seen lots of positions that break null-move, as one example. If you don't want me to look at a 6 ply search (so that I know the basic search depth) to see what is happening, then you make it impossible for me to produce a 6 ply search. If you don't want me to have any idea of how much of your program is search and how much is evaluation, then hide the NPS, and the nodes searched, and the depth, and don't even show the complete PV. Now it is _very_ hard to figure out what is going on because you can't obtain enough information to figure out much.

I can't imagine any other reason.[/quote]

Rybka is IMHO a brutal effective and fast searcher. It is as dumb as Toga for example. It has very little knowledge about chess.

[d] 1k1r3r/1ppqb1pp/p1n1pp1n/3pPb2/BP1P1P2/2P1BN2/P5PP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 12

It thinks this position, which is easily won for white, is better for black.
Just like all other dumb engines like Toga etc. think it is better for black.
That says it all.

It is unfortunate that the game of Chess allows stupidity to prevail. We should just move on and search for another Board game where this can't happen.[/quote]

If you win more games than the opponent then it is clear that you do something smart that the opponents do not do.

Calling engines that do something smart that the opponents do not do in the name stupid does not make sense.

Uri
Dr.Ex
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:10 am

Re: Have you decided why Vas

Post by Dr.Ex »

[/quote]

If you win more games than the opponent then it is clear that you do something smart that the opponents do not do.

Calling engines that do something smart that the opponents do not do in the name stupid does not make sense.

Uri[/quote]

Just the fact that a program has evaluation terms which work on average better than that of the competition does not make a program "smart".
It is still a stupid beancounter.
User avatar
GenoM
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Full name: Evgenii Manev

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by GenoM »

there is another possible answer why Rybka shows such weird number of kN/s, an answer noone have talked over.
There is a possibility that typical Rybka way of showing kN/s may be is a bug, a bug Rajlich is happy with. Remember, there was a patched by Rick Fadden version of Rybka beta which showed correct numbers of nodes and plies, but this version often losed on time.
How about such an answer? The same answer may be valid for another Rybka bug (or feature?) too -- underpromotion to bishop, if I recall correctly.
take it easy :)
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Academic role model wouldnt oppose Vas

Post by bob »

Rolf wrote:
bob wrote: Again, I have no idea what you are rambling on about here. I certainly don't follow any possible point about "I earn my money because I have a job at a university". I do not see how where my job is has anything to do with this. If I worked for IBM, or even Bell South which I worked for in 1970, how would it make any difference whatsoever?

Next, where have I tried to "destroy" anything? Someone asked a question about why the numbers were "doctored". I gave a simple and direct answer to that question. Nothing more, nothing less. Answering a question with an answer than has already been posted _many_ times previously is not a method of destruction. It is a method of dessimination for information that someone requested.

This business of discovering the "tricks" or "features" of others is common. In science. In manufacturing. In designing. In archtecture. In you-name-it. Why would someone want to continue to reinvent the wheel when it is not necessary. The hard work is going beyond the known. Absolutely nothing immoral about this. Other commercial programs came up with new ideas. I think Shredder was the first to use what are currently called "reductions". And the idea then leaked out. It will happen with Rybka, sooner or later, then everybody will use that feature and then someone will come up with something new and the cycle starts over.

And it is perfectly normal and healthy to have things work like that.

As for the "assisting" I don't do that, because I don't run windows applications in any form, and don't buy commercial chess programs either since I have one I can use whenever I want. So I don't know what that is all about either...
Just to tell you a few novelties. In Israel someone sat in prison because he had reveiled details of the Israelian Atomic Weapons Program. But you insist it's rambling if I warn you to participate in such talking about why and how Vas had veiled the output of his KN count? And you insist that you cant simply imagine why I would see problems with such a participation?

So, I want to ask you if you would also participate if someone from East Asia asked you - set the case that you knew something about the possibilities to fake originals with computer program aid - how this and that in the material of the original must be interpreted so that the cheating program could reveil the details to then being able to copy the original into the fake, then you would be pleased to explain that and so to answer the interesting and by far not criminal question?

You are making one giant leap for Rolf, one bit of nonsense for mankind. Let's back up. Someone asked the simple question "what would be the reason for masking search depth, node count, nps, etc?" They didn't ask for help in discovering what Vas is doing, although I would have made suggestions if asked. They simply asked "why would anyone do this?" And I answered the question directly, and factually. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone were to ask me "Why would someone want to spoof someone else's IP address?" I would answer that in the same way, because the reasons are well-known to people savvy in networking. Has nothing to do with trying to help write code to actually do the spoofing, etc. So I do not see where you are trying to go with this, other than to just create endless discussion.


You can insult me with what you prefer verbally, but you wont extinct the moral of my question how you as academic used your knowledge to harm the commercial basis of another computerchess guy, actually the best one around.
You can keep saying that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. I have not "used my knowledge as an academic to harm the commercial basis of another..." Again, the fact that he did this is indisputable. It was discovered and made public by others, not me, as I have never had a copy of the program. But I _am_ qualified to answer the "why" question, because I understand what goes on inside the programs quite well, and I understand how displayed information can reveal details about the internal operation of the program.

Bob, why are you so scrupulous to not engage another teacher for your classes during World Championships because you say you are academic in the first place - - and then you have absolutely no problem to forget the academic morals of science and you engage yourself in the forum activity to reveil the hidden secrets of a commercial programmer? How does this fit together without too many headaches?
I have given the reasons I don't attend WCCCs of recent years. I attended several back in the days when they were 3 day events. Now they are two week events. Always held a long and expensive trip away from the US. The cost is too high both in terms of travel/room/food expenses, as well as the cost in terms of time.

Secondly, why don't you show me _exactly_ "one hidden secret of a commercial programmer that I have revealed..." Then I can answer that question. Because to date I have revealed _nothing_.

Do you really feel morally justified if you talk with a guy like Burcham who insulted Vas as a cheater of his paying customers? Couldnt you at least demonstrate why the indication of nodes count is a cheat if based upon the program itself the output doesnt intentionally scramble the meaning? So if the logical rules are considered and well applied, where is the cheat if the output is appearing different to the competitors? To clarify that would be an honorable task for an academic teacher. But not explaining how to reveil the secrets of a program.
I feel neither moral nor immoral, because it was not a moral issue. It was a technical question, which received a technical answer. Morals play no issue there. If he had asked "what is 2+2?" would "4" have been immoral?

I have a little addition because I showed the debate to experts here in Germany. Question came how someone could be defamated because he went commercial with his program IF there were no rules integrated long before that would forbid the commercial exploitation of certain computerchess programming tricks or routines? Could you answer that? Why is Vas looking strange to you - sorry, my vocabulary is restricted in a foreigner speech, so dont accuse me that strange isnt the correct term, take whatever you prefer instead - if he took knowledge that was openly discussed here and refuses now to reveil all his new details of his program? What is wrong with what he does? What is it what makes you think or feel, that this isnt quite kosher?
What I said, simply stated, was this: "I don't consider it reasonable behavior to participate, ask questions, and learn from the experience of others, and then when you stumble across a new idea that works out, close the channel of communication and then become a commercial author." It is not that bad a deal, but it is something that just doesn't strike _me_ as acceptable. It is a personal opinion, but since it is _my_ opinion, it is the one that counts for me. If it doesn't matter beans for you, I don't have a problem with that.

The point is this: I (and others) have a huge amount of experience, and we can answer questions in minutes that might take months for someone else to discover the answer. How, probably because we have _already_ taken months to find that answer for ourselves. It makes perfect sense to share that information, which speeds up progress in computer chess significantly since everybody is not continually re-inventing the same wheel over and over. So "our" experience saves "them" a lot of time and greatly accelerates their improvement rate. And then they find something very good, that took time to find, and they take it and run. And leave the rest of us to re-invent the wheel for ourselves.

Sound fair?

The fairest solution is for everyone to "clam up". And computer chess progress today would be where we were 10 years ago had that happened. fortunately, most (most but certainly not ALL) prefer the all-for-one-one-for-all approach to drive progress forward at a more rapid pace.

Is that so very difficult to understand? Apparently.

Here is a slightly different variation. You give me your opinion:

Several years ago Vincent wanted to develop a parallel search. He read my dissertation. He sent me literally hundreds of emails asking questions about this and that. I still have 'em all in fact. I responded to each as best I could. I let him run on my machines. I let him use my office quad (one of the fastest around at the time) in some tournament over in Europe. Etc. If you look thru the CCC archive you can find a post by him where he claimed to have found a bug in Crafty's search, but he wasn't going to reveal it because he didn't want to see a stronger crafty at a WCCC event. Obviously not the moral high-road, but that's water under the bridge.

But if you agree that the latter example was a bit much, then you would also be agreeing (by proxy) that the former case is also a bit much. Because except for technical details, the overall behavior is very similar. take but don't give back...

That's my issue, and my _only_ issue. I made enjoyable friendships with Slate, Thompson, and Hsu, even though all had stronger programs than I did when the friendships began. I never beat deep thought/deep blue, and _still_ consider Hsu a friend. I eventually did beat slate and Ken, and we are _still_ friends. So it is not about who has the best program, it is more about fairness. And most know that Hsu, and Thompson, and Slate, made evrything they did public. As have I and many others...