BB+ on the matter

[Dann Corbit]

I think you are wrong. You wish to narrow the word contribution only toward teaching others how you did it, but that is a bogus argument IMHO. For example, from Shredder 6 to 8, and the other competing Fritzes and whatnot, we saw progress in the order of 20-30 elo per YEAR in software. It had gotten to the point where this was believed to be what one could expect, and if one made 40 Elo, it was a miracle. By simply trouncing Shredder 8, as well as keeping a breathtaking rhythm of 100 Elo per year for years, Vas proved this wrong. Interestingly, as soon as he had proven this, everyone started doing the same, realizing this thinking was nonsense. Even if he did not explain how, his program was also the first one to demonstrably show how much one could benefit from a 64-bit OS, which until then had been the subject of discussions and not results. Creating and sharing the top program bar-none is not a lack of contribution. It may not teach others how to do it, but it has had a huge positive impact on computer chess and chess itself.

Then I think you should call it an impact, but you shouldn't call it a contribution. Doing so diminishes actual contributions that were freely given. Contributions are charitable. Contribution implies sharing without strings. Contributions by paid individuals are over and above pay grade.

But holding secrets for competitive advantage isn't a contribution by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say that's bad. But it's not a contribution.

Henry Ford makes a car. He doesn't even invent it. He just figures out ways to make them quickly and cheaply. He doesn't give out the clever things he discovers.

Did Mr. Ford make no contribution to society?

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

There are different kinds of contributions.

[mhull]

You can cook a fine dinner and feed it to me.
You can show me how to cook it myself.
You can show me how to cook it and then feed me.
You can teach me how to teach others to cook it.
All are contributions related to a meal. I think we have something analogous here.

The first one is not a contribution if he also served you the check.

[Graham Banks]

I think you are wrong. You wish to narrow the word contribution only toward teaching others how you did it, but that is a bogus argument IMHO. For example, from Shredder 6 to 8, and the other competing Fritzes and whatnot, we saw progress in the order of 20-30 elo per YEAR in software. It had gotten to the point where this was believed to be what one could expect, and if one made 40 Elo, it was a miracle. By simply trouncing Shredder 8, as well as keeping a breathtaking rhythm of 100 Elo per year for years, Vas proved this wrong. Interestingly, as soon as he had proven this, everyone started doing the same, realizing this thinking was nonsense. Even if he did not explain how, his program was also the first one to demonstrably show how much one could benefit from a 64-bit OS, which until then had been the subject of discussions and not results. Creating and sharing the top program bar-none is not a lack of contribution. It may not teach others how to do it, but it has had a huge positive impact on computer chess and chess itself.

Then I think you should call it an impact, but you shouldn't call it a contribution. Doing so diminishes actual contributions that were freely given. Contributions are charitable. Contribution implies sharing without strings. Contributions by paid individuals are over and above pay grade.

But holding secrets for competitive advantage isn't a contribution by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say that's bad. But it's not a contribution.

I can't find any dictionary that shares your understanding of the word contribution.

[mhull]

I think you are wrong. You wish to narrow the word contribution only toward teaching others how you did it, but that is a bogus argument IMHO. For example, from Shredder 6 to 8, and the other competing Fritzes and whatnot, we saw progress in the order of 20-30 elo per YEAR in software. It had gotten to the point where this was believed to be what one could expect, and if one made 40 Elo, it was a miracle. By simply trouncing Shredder 8, as well as keeping a breathtaking rhythm of 100 Elo per year for years, Vas proved this wrong. Interestingly, as soon as he had proven this, everyone started doing the same, realizing this thinking was nonsense. Even if he did not explain how, his program was also the first one to demonstrably show how much one could benefit from a 64-bit OS, which until then had been the subject of discussions and not results. Creating and sharing the top program bar-none is not a lack of contribution. It may not teach others how to do it, but it has had a huge positive impact on computer chess and chess itself.

Then I think you should call it an impact, but you shouldn't call it a contribution. Doing so diminishes actual contributions that were freely given. Contributions are charitable. Contribution implies sharing without strings. Contributions by paid individuals are over and above pay grade.

But holding secrets for competitive advantage isn't a contribution by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say that's bad. But it's not a contribution.

I can't find any dictionary that shares your understanding of the word contribution.

It must be because you have your eyes closed.

Wikipedia:
Contribution may refer to:

* Donation
* Sharing
* Payment

Merriam-Webster:

Synonyms: alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy

Oxford:
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictio ... ntribution

[mwyoung]

... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.

It's no wonder that none of the commercial engine authors seem to post here any more. A crying shame actually.

This is not just a "here" problem. Commercial authors are secretive, and don't like to be called out on that. Same thing happened in r.g.c.c years ago. They all left there. Most have left here. Most have left _every_ site unless they run one themselves where they can control/limit discussions.

"where they can control/limit discussions"

BINGO!

I am glad to see their supporters can no longer control/ limit discussions here on CCC. I thank the new moderators very much.

[Dann Corbit]

I think you are wrong. You wish to narrow the word contribution only toward teaching others how you did it, but that is a bogus argument IMHO. For example, from Shredder 6 to 8, and the other competing Fritzes and whatnot, we saw progress in the order of 20-30 elo per YEAR in software. It had gotten to the point where this was believed to be what one could expect, and if one made 40 Elo, it was a miracle. By simply trouncing Shredder 8, as well as keeping a breathtaking rhythm of 100 Elo per year for years, Vas proved this wrong. Interestingly, as soon as he had proven this, everyone started doing the same, realizing this thinking was nonsense. Even if he did not explain how, his program was also the first one to demonstrably show how much one could benefit from a 64-bit OS, which until then had been the subject of discussions and not results. Creating and sharing the top program bar-none is not a lack of contribution. It may not teach others how to do it, but it has had a huge positive impact on computer chess and chess itself.

Then I think you should call it an impact, but you shouldn't call it a contribution. Doing so diminishes actual contributions that were freely given. Contributions are charitable. Contribution implies sharing without strings. Contributions by paid individuals are over and above pay grade.

But holding secrets for competitive advantage isn't a contribution by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say that's bad. But it's not a contribution.

I can't find any dictionary that shares your understanding of the word contribution.

It must be because you have your eyes closed.

Wikipedia:
Contribution may refer to:

* Donation
* Sharing
* Payment

Merriam-Webster:

Synonyms: alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy

Definition

contribution noun /ˌkɒn.trɪˈbjuː.ʃən//ˌkɑːn-/ n [C or U] something that you do or give to help produce or achieve something together with other people, or to help make something successful
All contributions (= presents of money), no matter how small, will be much appreciated.
All contributions (= articles to be printed) for the school magazine must be received by August 1st.
This invention made a major contribution to road safety.
She didn't make much of a contribution (= She did not say much) at today's meeting, did she?


I think we can agree that there are different kinds of contributions.
I think we both agree that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish.
Some contributions are larger than others. That goes without saying.

[Graham Banks]

I can't find any dictionary that shares your understanding of the word contribution.

It must be because you have your eyes closed.

Wikipedia:
Contribution may refer to:

* Donation
* Sharing
* Payment

Merriam-Webster:

Synonyms: alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy

Contribution does not solely refer to giving freely, which is what you're inferring.

Scientists make a contribution to society's knowledge with their discoveries, whether they are paid for conducting their research or not.

Chess grandmasters make a contribution to chess, whether they are paid or unpaid.

Some think that church ministers make a contribution to society. Are they all unpaid too?

Regardless, this is a debate that should probably happen elsewhere.

[Graham Banks]

... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.

It's no wonder that none of the commercial engine authors seem to post here any more. A crying shame actually.

This is not just a "here" problem. Commercial authors are secretive, and don't like to be called out on that. Same thing happened in r.g.c.c years ago. They all left there. Most have left here. Most have left _every_ site unless they run one themselves where they can control/limit discussions.

"where they can control/limit discussions"

BINGO!

I am glad to see their supporters can no longer control/ limit discussions here on CCC. I thank the new moderators very much.

If you're referring to me, I support all chess engine authors (engines that I regard as not clones that is).
And like most people, I'd much rather get a strong engine free rather than having to pay for it.
However, everybody has their own morals about what is right and what is wrong.

[Don]

You can cook a fine dinner and feed it to me.
You can show me how to cook it myself.
You can show me how to cook it and then feed me.
You can teach me how to teach others to cook it.
All are contributions related to a meal. I think we have something analogous here.

The first one is not a contribution if he also served you the check.

By your standards it's only a contribution if they received "no compensation" for it. But compensation can take many forms so if someone does something they "enjoy", then they are receiving compensation and by your definition it ceases to become a true contribution.

The fallacy is that you view everything from a materialistic viewpoint. You don't understand that in any kind of transaction, whether it involves money or not, both parties can come out the winner. I might help the neighbor shovel his sidewalk without expecting anything in return except feeling good about myself and knowing that I helped someone. I received compensation for my act and it may be as simple as a pat on the back.

Your basic conceptual model of monetary transactions is that it is a zero sum game (assuming neither party was cheated), that the buyer loses something but gains something in return and that it is of exactly equal value. But that is not how economics work. And this same principle applies whether physical money is involved or it's a transaction of some other kind - such as social interactions.

Otherwise, by your narrow minded view anyone who works for a living is not making any kind of contribution to society, unless they are being cheated out of pay and making less than they deserve.

[rodolfoleoni]

My first post since about 4 years, and it's about this very delicate argument. For those who don't know me, I'm a tester for The Baron and, recently, Frenzee. Two engines built with years of real hard work.

It's not so easy to have an opinion about all that stuff. Clones? Original engines? No way to know it until Vas decides to release the R3 code. Seemingly, he has some private reasons to keep it secret, so I believe there's no way to know the truth.

The impact that this fact has on unexpert computer chess users is confusion. One reads opinions from Rybka supportesr, then he reads opinions from Ipp* supporters, and the only clear thing is that all of them really believe to what they say. But no matters how strongly one believes in something. They're only impressions, subjective perceptions.

It'd be different if some kind of Authority could exist in the field of Computer Chess, similarly to many sport federations. Some kind of a Committee which can ask Vasik for that code (keeping it secret), to compare it with Ipp* and derivated. Some "super partes", honest, trustworthy, expert programmers who can decide what's legal and what's not.