Mostly for Christophe Theron

[chrisw]

<snipped>

... It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.
- ...
// Christophe

(even if they work hard and make something better than rybka2.2n2 in one year then Vas may release new free program that is stronger at that time).

Uri

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs.

YES. of course...

- I do believe computer chess has changed for the worst. Strong open source programs have made the field less interesting for programmers by taking away the value of some ideas that took a long time for them to find and implement. But maybe it has made the field more interesting for users, so be it. However we have seen at the same time the emergence of bad behaviour that takes advantage of the initially generous idea of open source. We have seen obvious clones and we have also seen that open source code could be hijacked to serve personal interests, which is open source used against the spirit of open source. - ...

"... you shoot with pellet for wolves..."

OK, obviously, I neither think that the spirit of the opened code source should be good for personal lucre...

if you act ethically on open code you should maintain your open license, (for that initially parts of a programming skeleton already built), and but it is the case to reach an agreement with the original programmer...

Finally, free (but not open source) programs have been used as a way to kill the competition. It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.

OK... your shotgun has two shots...

1- spirit of open source...

2- not open source but free...

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs ...

Now of course my interpretation is going to be interpreted as an attack.

// Christophe

I hope to understand it correctly, but I believe that you speak of 2 topics and they are two different topics, two good shots, I already told before you...

on one hand, the topic of using open code... ( fruit ?)

and on the other hand to use the old versions of programs proprietors like weapon , evidently you cannot compete against a price = 0.

1- spirit of open source... Strong open source programs ( fruit ? )

2- not open source but free of charge... (and I think that with more reason if this program leaves of a beginning of open code source...)

but? do I think? which is the surprise... if he/she is devoted exclusively to that need or work, the intention or the strategy is the law of the strongest, if in that way they can put an end to the competition... reason not?

in this world, always and in all the times it has always been tried to monopolize the market... I attempt it before chessbase and you had to compete in disadvantage in many occasions in front of other much more commercial programs

and now others try to maintain or to enlarge their market quota by force of exploding this with free" "cost or free

it is "the art of the war" by Sun Wu, applied to the business-chess...

Anyway, other people change way perhaps of thinking when in a future, even appear another program stronger and then the programmer can that he decides to loose it gratuitously...

it is evident that nobody remembers sacred Barbara, until it doesn't thunder...

in other works... to enter in that dynamics is dangerous, ethically doubtful but very effective short term...

as of short the term is? until another stronger program appears and pay with the same currency...

this it is my opinion and although it is considered as an attack it is what there is.. don´t problem... it is time of waiting.

bye. from Spain. Oliver.

Your analysis is mostly correct.

I just wanted to point out the fact that giving a program for free in this particular context is an act of destruction aimed at other chess programmers.

The user's first thoughts are that it is good for them. They get a strong program for free.

But I know many users who used to appreciate the diversity and hard work produced when several talented programmers were able to fight in a competitive but still fair environment.

Think about Genius, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chess System Tal and many others. Do you remember that any of these programs have been at some point been given for free in an attempt to devaluate the interest in the competitors? I mean, Genius, Fritz or Shredder have all been in position, at some point, to give away for free the previous version, which was still stronger than any best version of any competitor.

But has it happened in the past? No it hasn't. The competitors had a sense of respect for each other.

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.

// Christophe

If giving away free versions makes brand loyalty and weakens the commercial strength and survivability of the opposition, then why not? Commercial programmers are in competition with each other not running a branch of the social services. Capitalistic dog eat dog world, ethics do not apply. Christophe, if you wish to see a competitive computer chess in the form of the Olympics - that is possible, but it requires amateur players only.

[Rolf]

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.



// Christophe

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. The diversity of programs had been interesting for the customers, testers and in the end most of all the chessplayers who seeked the analyses of a good player. But Chris T you yourself if you played chess no matter on what level, you wouldnt take entities to get advice who are way weaker, but if it were possible, you would take the Russian GM in computerchess and this is RYBKA but not Tiger.

Dont continue to seek stories to harm Rybka if you cant compete with Vas' strengtrh. Did Bob ever whine for his Crafty when he once was the champ with his mega hardware. Nor did Ed Schroder ever whine that the beatiful days of Rebel on SSDF are gone and the whole business offered more and more cheaper software.

Basically I can only contradict Chris W with his opinion that society didnt owe programmers in chess a daily warm soup. Simply because the chess programmers with their software are the reason why users buy so many always stronger hardware combinations. So the industry of computers should owe the programmers a obulus in the moment a software is installed on a hardware. Perhaps crazy idea but think it over it makes sense. But please Christophe dont do that anymore, that you attack collegues who actually are better or dont defame users who buy the number one chess advisor.

Couldnt we come together in that spirit again? THat we see your sorrow but that you see tht you had attacked the wrong people for your pain.

P.S. Economically the whole problem could also be solved by obulus from the chess business like ChessBase. But please dont irritate the end user who already has to pay for the machine and then all the software.

GENS UNA SUMUS

[Uri Blass]

<snipped>

... It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.
- ...
// Christophe

(even if they work hard and make something better than rybka2.2n2 in one year then Vas may release new free program that is stronger at that time).

Uri

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs.

YES. of course...

- I do believe computer chess has changed for the worst. Strong open source programs have made the field less interesting for programmers by taking away the value of some ideas that took a long time for them to find and implement. But maybe it has made the field more interesting for users, so be it. However we have seen at the same time the emergence of bad behaviour that takes advantage of the initially generous idea of open source. We have seen obvious clones and we have also seen that open source code could be hijacked to serve personal interests, which is open source used against the spirit of open source. - ...

"... you shoot with pellet for wolves..."

OK, obviously, I neither think that the spirit of the opened code source should be good for personal lucre...

if you act ethically on open code you should maintain your open license, (for that initially parts of a programming skeleton already built), and but it is the case to reach an agreement with the original programmer...

Finally, free (but not open source) programs have been used as a way to kill the competition. It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.

OK... your shotgun has two shots...

1- spirit of open source...

2- not open source but free...

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs ...

Now of course my interpretation is going to be interpreted as an attack.

// Christophe

I hope to understand it correctly, but I believe that you speak of 2 topics and they are two different topics, two good shots, I already told before you...

on one hand, the topic of using open code... ( fruit ?)

and on the other hand to use the old versions of programs proprietors like weapon , evidently you cannot compete against a price = 0.

1- spirit of open source... Strong open source programs ( fruit ? )

2- not open source but free of charge... (and I think that with more reason if this program leaves of a beginning of open code source...)

but? do I think? which is the surprise... if he/she is devoted exclusively to that need or work, the intention or the strategy is the law of the strongest, if in that way they can put an end to the competition... reason not?

in this world, always and in all the times it has always been tried to monopolize the market... I attempt it before chessbase and you had to compete in disadvantage in many occasions in front of other much more commercial programs

and now others try to maintain or to enlarge their market quota by force of exploding this with free" "cost or free

it is "the art of the war" by Sun Wu, applied to the business-chess...

Anyway, other people change way perhaps of thinking when in a future, even appear another program stronger and then the programmer can that he decides to loose it gratuitously...

it is evident that nobody remembers sacred Barbara, until it doesn't thunder...

in other works... to enter in that dynamics is dangerous, ethically doubtful but very effective short term...

as of short the term is? until another stronger program appears and pay with the same currency...

this it is my opinion and although it is considered as an attack it is what there is.. don´t problem... it is time of waiting.

bye. from Spain. Oliver.

Your analysis is mostly correct.

I just wanted to point out the fact that giving a program for free in this particular context is an act of destruction aimed at other chess programmers.

The user's first thoughts are that it is good for them. They get a strong program for free.

But I know many users who used to appreciate the diversity and hard work produced when several talented programmers were able to fight in a competitive but still fair environment.

Think about Genius, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chess System Tal and many others. Do you remember that any of these programs have been at some point been given for free in an attempt to devaluate the interest in the competitors? I mean, Genius, Fritz or Shredder have all been in position, at some point, to give away for free the previous version, which was still stronger than any best version of any competitor.

But has it happened in the past? No it hasn't. The competitors had a sense of respect for each other.

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.



// Christophe

I agree that it is unethical but there is a difference between the situation today and the situation at the time of other programs and maybe part of the programmers did not do like Vas because of other reasons and not because they considered it as unethical.

The difference between Rybka3 and the opponents is clearly bigger.

other programmer could do the same as Vasik but in this case the free version could score more than 40% against the commercial version
so it could reduce sales of the commercial version.

In the case of rybka the difference seem to be something like 70:30 result
so not many are going to avoid buying the commercial version because of the free version.

Uri

[tiger]

<snipped>

... It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.
- ...
// Christophe

(even if they work hard and make something better than rybka2.2n2 in one year then Vas may release new free program that is stronger at that time).

Uri

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs.

YES. of course...

- I do believe computer chess has changed for the worst. Strong open source programs have made the field less interesting for programmers by taking away the value of some ideas that took a long time for them to find and implement. But maybe it has made the field more interesting for users, so be it. However we have seen at the same time the emergence of bad behaviour that takes advantage of the initially generous idea of open source. We have seen obvious clones and we have also seen that open source code could be hijacked to serve personal interests, which is open source used against the spirit of open source. - ...

"... you shoot with pellet for wolves..."

OK, obviously, I neither think that the spirit of the opened code source should be good for personal lucre...

if you act ethically on open code you should maintain your open license, (for that initially parts of a programming skeleton already built), and but it is the case to reach an agreement with the original programmer...

Finally, free (but not open source) programs have been used as a way to kill the competition. It had never happened in the past. Users think it's great, but I don't think so.

OK... your shotgun has two shots...

1- spirit of open source...

2- not open source but free...

I think this is the correct explanation. The release of Rybka 2.x as a free engine (not open source but free of charge) has the effect of killing most of the value of competing programs ...

Now of course my interpretation is going to be interpreted as an attack.

// Christophe

I hope to understand it correctly, but I believe that you speak of 2 topics and they are two different topics, two good shots, I already told before you...

on one hand, the topic of using open code... ( fruit ?)

and on the other hand to use the old versions of programs proprietors like weapon , evidently you cannot compete against a price = 0.

1- spirit of open source... Strong open source programs ( fruit ? )

2- not open source but free of charge... (and I think that with more reason if this program leaves of a beginning of open code source...)

but? do I think? which is the surprise... if he/she is devoted exclusively to that need or work, the intention or the strategy is the law of the strongest, if in that way they can put an end to the competition... reason not?

in this world, always and in all the times it has always been tried to monopolize the market... I attempt it before chessbase and you had to compete in disadvantage in many occasions in front of other much more commercial programs

and now others try to maintain or to enlarge their market quota by force of exploding this with free" "cost or free

it is "the art of the war" by Sun Wu, applied to the business-chess...

Anyway, other people change way perhaps of thinking when in a future, even appear another program stronger and then the programmer can that he decides to loose it gratuitously...

it is evident that nobody remembers sacred Barbara, until it doesn't thunder...

in other works... to enter in that dynamics is dangerous, ethically doubtful but very effective short term...

as of short the term is? until another stronger program appears and pay with the same currency...

this it is my opinion and although it is considered as an attack it is what there is.. don´t problem... it is time of waiting.

bye. from Spain. Oliver.

Your analysis is mostly correct.

I just wanted to point out the fact that giving a program for free in this particular context is an act of destruction aimed at other chess programmers.

The user's first thoughts are that it is good for them. They get a strong program for free.

But I know many users who used to appreciate the diversity and hard work produced when several talented programmers were able to fight in a competitive but still fair environment.

Think about Genius, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chess System Tal and many others. Do you remember that any of these programs have been at some point been given for free in an attempt to devaluate the interest in the competitors? I mean, Genius, Fritz or Shredder have all been in position, at some point, to give away for free the previous version, which was still stronger than any best version of any competitor.

But has it happened in the past? No it hasn't. The competitors had a sense of respect for each other.

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.

// Christophe

If giving away free versions makes brand loyalty and weakens the commercial strength and survivability of the opposition, then why not? Commercial programmers are in competition with each other not running a branch of the social services. Capitalistic dog eat dog world, ethics do not apply. Christophe, if you wish to see a competitive computer chess in the form of the Olympics - that is possible, but it requires amateur players only.

At another level which is not comparable in quantity but is comparable in principle, we have seen that overanticompetitive actions by Microsoft have been answered in the operating system field by Linux, in the internet browser/email by Mozilla and in the office suite by OpenOffice, just to name a few.



// Christophe

[Karmazen & Oliver]

obviously, this was seen come...

the subconscious one reveals but you sew of what seems...

if we analyze this logo, can we see a fish? (a Pygocentrus piraya perhaps? )


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pira%C3%B1a

carrying out a metaphor or comparison, let us compare the world of the chess programming, as an aquarium, in the internet ocean..

the biological balance of an aquarium is very delicate and any minimum interference can destabilize it, to corrupt it and to toss it to lose.

now, do let us imagine that we put a Pygocentrus piraya in the aquarium, (what will this Pygocentrus piraya make with all the aquarium fish? ) TO EAT UP THEM.

after a time, the users that we saw amusing and amusing the aquarium with all those fish of colors, (with different styles and weaknesses that made them only and different) alone we will be able to see Pygocentrus piraya .

fish big and small Pygocentrus piraya , but without diversity...

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

only r is on acuarium chess world... ?¡ boring.

[tiger]

Your analysis is mostly correct.

I just wanted to point out the fact that giving a program for free in this particular context is an act of destruction aimed at other chess programmers.

The user's first thoughts are that it is good for them. They get a strong program for free.

But I know many users who used to appreciate the diversity and hard work produced when several talented programmers were able to fight in a competitive but still fair environment.

Think about Genius, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chess System Tal and many others. Do you remember that any of these programs have been at some point been given for free in an attempt to devaluate the interest in the competitors? I mean, Genius, Fritz or Shredder have all been in position, at some point, to give away for free the previous version, which was still stronger than any best version of any competitor.

But has it happened in the past? No it hasn't. The competitors had a sense of respect for each other.

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.



// Christophe

I agree that it is unethical but there is a difference between the situation today and the situation at the time of other programs and maybe part of the programmers did not do like Vas because of other reasons and not because they considered it as unethical.

The difference between Rybka3 and the opponents is clearly bigger.

other programmer could do the same as Vasik but in this case the free version could score more than 40% against the commercial version
so it could reduce sales of the commercial version.

In the case of rybka the difference seem to be something like 70:30 result
so not many are going to avoid buying the commercial version because of the free version.

Uri

It has begun with the first free version of Rybka.



// Christophe

[tiger]

obviously, this was seen come...

the subconscious one reveals but you sew of what seems...

if we analyze this logo, can we see a fish? (a Pygocentrus piraya perhaps? )


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pira%C3%B1a

carrying out a metaphor or comparison, let us compare the world of the chess programming, as an aquarium, in the internet ocean..

the biological balance of an aquarium is very delicate and any minimum interference can destabilize it, to corrupt it and to toss it to lose.

now, do let us imagine that we put a Pygocentrus piraya in the aquarium, (what will this Pygocentrus piraya make with all the aquarium fish? ) TO EAT UP THEM.

after a time, the users that we saw amusing and amusing the aquarium with all those fish of colors, (with different styles and weaknesses that made them only and different) alone we will be able to see Pygocentrus piraya .

fish big and small Pygocentrus piraya , but without diversity...

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8665/e ... reewd4.jpg

only r is on acuarium chess world... ?¡ boring.

Your methaphor is excellent.

Someone wants the aquarium for him alone.



// Christophe

[Rolf]

Think about Genius, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Chess System Tal and many others. Do you remember that any of these programs have been at some point been given for free in an attempt to devaluate the interest in the competitors? I mean, Genius, Fritz or Shredder have all been in position, at some point, to give away for free the previous version, which was still stronger than any best version of any competitor.

But has it happened in the past? No it hasn't. The competitors had a sense of respect for each other.

What is expected now?

I expect users who used to appreciate the diversity to realize, later, too late, that diversity has been killed by an anti-competitive action that, as legal as it is, is in my opinion unethical.

// Christophe

This is like you would want to open total war but in truth you are simply dead wrong.

First it's wrong to state that the above didnt offer their former versions for free. Apropos diversity, I could already in the past take the free version from Rebel. That was either the famous Decade players or directly Rebel 11 or was it 10 but with a wall against the usage of the most strongest level. So far about diversity.

At that time I already had so many programs that I really had not the time to ALSO begin to analyse or to play with the many Tiger versions, Gambit or not. It was already then too many.

But at that time other have made their decisions out of chance also pro Tiger but still we all hadnt yet the number one monster machine. But now we have and if in these days, Rybka 3 is monster number one GM player & advisor, and it costs 35 € more or less then Vas simply continues the Fritz tradition because when Fritz 8 came out you could get Fritz 6 or so for free. Remember for many of us already Fritz 6 was hard to beat.

IMO you are seeking total war arguments nothing else.

[Ovyron]

"Knowledge and style doesn't [.] mean max elo" doesn't hold true after Rybka 3 Human, the best playing style, the most knowledge of all Rybkas and suspected to be the strongest one at slow time controls.

[kranium]

If giving away free versions makes brand loyalty and weakens the commercial strength and survivability of the opposition, then why not? Commercial programmers are in competition with each other not running a branch of the social services. Capitalistic dog eat dog world, ethics do not apply. Christophe, if you wish to see a competitive computer chess in the form of the Olympics - that is possible, but it requires amateur players only.

Hi Chris-
you have a point here,

but 'Capitalistic dog eat dog world, ethics do not apply'?

I get this image in my head of corrupt big business, capable, more than willing, and permitted to doing anything to succeed...a pretty scary thought.

Believe me, I know the feeling, the over-zealousness, the casting of ethic aside in an effort to acheive at any cost.

Norm