| |
Main
Date: 30 May 2008 11:22:23
From: Mapleleaf
Subject: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top engine
you need to be secretive about what you re programming.
This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list (let's
say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source project
with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine again?
(That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
|
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2008 11:06:24
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
"Mapleleaf" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top engine you
> need to be secretive about what you re programming.
>
> This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list (let's
> say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
Not necessairly a commercian engine... It could be a free engine with a very
dedicated group of talented people.
The only reasons top programs are commercial are:
1) to pay the programmer's salaries so they don't have to work in their
spare time.
2) to pay for expensive high end computer equipment for tournaments and
tuning.
3) because they want to make some money.
#3 is irrelevant.
#2 is significant, but not a killer. Look at Hyatt. He gets his computer
time for free from the University, or from AMD, or Intel, etc. etc. Even
his personal laptop is faster than the computers he was using just a few
years ago. And as for needing lots of powerful computers to do lots of
testings & tunings... With the price of computers these days, that's not as
big an issue as it used to be. You can get a quad core pretty cheap us$600,
or just pick up a few dual cores. For us$5000 (the cost of a good gaming
system) you could have a pretty decent computer farm to test your program.
#1 is the big issue. Unless you are lucky or very talented, doing a top
program is going to take a long time and a lot of effort. More than one or
two persons and afford to spend without any money coming in to buy food.
> What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source project
> with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine again?
Yes.
It is true that in an open engine, the competitors will know everything you
do, but if you do things right, then that doesn't necessarily mean they will
be able to do it better. They could clone you, but that doesn't mean they
could do it better. And cloning could get them in trouble.
Secrecy is helpful. No question about that. Especially before a big
tournament. Such as preventing a competitor from tuning his program to beat
your program's known playing style.
But I do believe an open engine could become the top engine under the right
circumstances with the right talent.
> (That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
> right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
To some degree, RGCC used to be about that. And now the forums (TalkChess,
ChessProgramming wiki, etc.) are about that.
That's how many of the recent inovations have come about, and why journals
such as the ICCAJ (now ICGAJ) are no longer as useful. Sharing of
information is faster and more interactive than it used to be.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 23:11:56
From: Mapleleaf
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
I think because of the competitive nature of computer chess maybe
secrecy has some benefits, but, it's not necessarily the overwhelming or
over riding benefit.
An open source project might be able to be "near the top" and even
maintain that position if it could constantly generate new ideas each
year for example.
Guest wrote:
> "Mapleleaf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top engine you
>> need to be secretive about what you re programming.
>>
>> This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list (let's
>> say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
>
> Not necessairly a commercian engine... It could be a free engine with a very
> dedicated group of talented people.
>
> The only reasons top programs are commercial are:
>
> 1) to pay the programmer's salaries so they don't have to work in their
> spare time.
>
> 2) to pay for expensive high end computer equipment for tournaments and
> tuning.
>
> 3) because they want to make some money.
>
>
> #3 is irrelevant.
>
> #2 is significant, but not a killer. Look at Hyatt. He gets his computer
> time for free from the University, or from AMD, or Intel, etc. etc. Even
> his personal laptop is faster than the computers he was using just a few
> years ago. And as for needing lots of powerful computers to do lots of
> testings & tunings... With the price of computers these days, that's not as
> big an issue as it used to be. You can get a quad core pretty cheap us$600,
> or just pick up a few dual cores. For us$5000 (the cost of a good gaming
> system) you could have a pretty decent computer farm to test your program.
>
> #1 is the big issue. Unless you are lucky or very talented, doing a top
> program is going to take a long time and a lot of effort. More than one or
> two persons and afford to spend without any money coming in to buy food.
>
>
>> What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source project
>> with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine again?
>
> Yes.
>
> It is true that in an open engine, the competitors will know everything you
> do, but if you do things right, then that doesn't necessarily mean they will
> be able to do it better. They could clone you, but that doesn't mean they
> could do it better. And cloning could get them in trouble.
>
> Secrecy is helpful. No question about that. Especially before a big
> tournament. Such as preventing a competitor from tuning his program to beat
> your program's known playing style.
>
> But I do believe an open engine could become the top engine under the right
> circumstances with the right talent.
>
>
>
>> (That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
>> right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
>
> To some degree, RGCC used to be about that. And now the forums (TalkChess,
> ChessProgramming wiki, etc.) are about that.
>
> That's how many of the recent inovations have come about, and why journals
> such as the ICCAJ (now ICGAJ) are no longer as useful. Sharing of
> information is faster and more interactive than it used to be.
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2008 09:56:38
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
> You've said you are dropping your chess program and wont improve it any and
> wont be participating in computer chess anymore, since there's no money in
> it and there's no chance of you becoming rich.
Yes, to some extent. Now I will not work so hard as I used to earlier.
But you may see a few improvements if possible.
Help Bot has told me "Do not run after money. Money is not everything
in life". So I am not much worried abt it. Life does not end here
there are many new things still waiting for me. I am happy I was able
to complete one mission of my life as per my expactations.
Incase I earn some good money, then I will improve GetClub Chess
further.
Lets start a new jouney as my Chess Mission is Complete...
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2008 04:08:37
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
List of Free Chess Engines with their ELO.
Note: Each of them can beat todays World Champion. So No human can
beat any of the below Chess Engines. So whats the point in making a
stronger Engine. When No one in the world can beat any of these free
Engines.
Alaric (v707 Elo 2752) by Peter Fendrich (SE)
Aristarch (v4.50 Elo 2698) by Stefan Zipproth (DE)
Baron (v1.8.1 Elo 2625) by Richard Pijl (NL)
Crafty (v21.5 Elo 2631 - 22.1 now available) by Bob Hyatt (US)
Delfi (v5.2 Elo 2756) by Philippe Fabiani (FR)
Fruit (v2.3.1 Elo 2863) by Fabien Letouzey (FR)
Gaia by Jean-francois Romang and David Rabel (FR)
Gambit Fruit (derived from Fruit by Fabien Letouzey/Bryan Hofmann (FR/
US)
Glaurung (v1.2.1 Elo 2726) by Tord Romstad (NO)
Ktulu ( (v4.2) by Rahman Paidar (IR)
List (v5.12 Elo 2720) by Fritz Reul (DE)
Movei (v0.08.438 Elo 2748) by Uri Blass (IL)
Naum (v1.91 Elo 2704) by Aleksandar Naumov (RS/CA)
Pharaon (3.5.1 Elo 2708) by Franck Zibi (FR)
ProDeo (v1.2 Elo 2689) by Ed Schr=F6der (NL)
Ruffian (v1.0.5 Elo 2711) by Per-Ola Valfridsson (SE)
Rybka (v.10 (free version) Elo 2920) by Vasik Rajlich (CZ/US)
Scorpio (v1.9 Elo 2754) by Daniel Shawul (ET)
Sjeng (also the engine in Mac OS X Chess) by Gian-Carlo Pascutto (BE)
Slow Chess (vBlitz WV2.1 Elo 2740) by Jonathan Kreuzer (US)
Spike (v1.2 Turin Elo 2855) by Volker B=F6hm and Ralf Sch=E4fer (DE)
Strelka (v1.8 Elo 2867) by Yuri Osipov (RU)
Toga II (v1.3.4 Elo 2868) derived from Fruit by Fabien Letouzey/Thomas
Gaksch (FR/DE)
Wildcat (v7 Elo 2730) by Igor Korshunov (RU)
Zappa (v1.1 (free version) Elo 2687) by Anthony Cozzie (US)
There are 50 free engines each better than Todays World Champion. So
what do you get if you make a better engine. The people playing will
find no difference whether it is Elo 2700 or ELo 3000. or 3500.
Got the point. Incase you create one more free Engine That will just
join the list above. So there are 50 Engines which even World
Champions cant beat then why will any one play them just to loose
every game???
That is the reasion I have stopped developing GetClub Chess further.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2008 11:38:42
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8c4fb0f8-90c6-464b-8a7a-fb2d13edd0e1@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
List of Free Chess Engines with their ELO.
>Note: Each of them can beat todays World Champion. So No human can
That's debatable. But not the point of your message... Your point is that
the programs already available are far stronger than most players & buyers.
Right off hand, I don't know how many of these are open source, but it is
interesting to point out a few I know.
Crafty (v21.5 Elo 2631 - 22.1 now available) by Bob Hyatt (US)
Fruit (v2.3.1 Elo 2863) by Fabien Letouzey (FR) (Older versions opensource,
newer ones closed, but free)
ProDeo (v1.2 Elo 2689) by Ed Schr�der (NL) (No source, but the algorithms
are fully described)
Strelka (v1.8 Elo 2867) by Yuri Osipov (RU) (Probably cloned. v2.0 is.)
Toga II (v1.3.4 Elo 2868) derived from Fruit by Fabien Letouzey/Thomas
So out of that list, I see 5 that are either open source or have been
explained in detail
Kind of interesting, considering some people have been talking about chess
programs have to be closed source or you need lots of moeny to make a good
program, etc.
I don't know how reliable those ratings are, since many of them are probably
computer vs. computer and that doesn't relate well to computer vs. human
ratings.
But it's still interesting since somebody brought up the subject elsewhere
about whether or not an opensource program could become the top program.
>Got the point. Incase you create one more free Engine That will just
>join the list above. So there are 50 Engines which even World
>Champions cant beat then why will any one play them just to loose
>every game???
Well duh!
Did you really start your GetClub chess with no computer chess experience,
without being familiar with the field, without knowing your competitors, but
yet still plan to make millions of dollars???
People doing computer chess do it because they love the work and the
challenge. Not because they expect to make money or write the top program.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| | |
Date: 31 May 2008 03:28:28
From: Sanny
Subject: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
In Opensource Engine only Average Programmers will work? Why will they
leave High paying Jobs and work for something that do not pays?
Say Dr Hyatt He gave 40 years of his life to develop Crafty why will
he give away the code for free? Will you give all the money you earned
in your lifetime for free?
Chess Master & other Big Companies gives $100,000 to a good Programmer
Why will he do the same job for free?
I can design GetClub better than Rybka and any other Chess Program in
the World But since there is no money in doing that I have no interest
in wasting more time.
Even Rybka is not earning much. Weaker programs are earning more than
the Stronger ones as for average player looses every game So it does
not matter which program is stronger.
People look for Other features and not at Strength as much.
It is only a few research people who think abt the strength. But it do
not give money. It needs a million dollar investment But without
return no one will waste that much money.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Jun 2008 01:00:55
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>In Opensource Engine only Average Programmers will work? Why will they
>leave High paying Jobs and work for something that do not pays?
Most chess programs have been written by rather bright people
for the fun of it. Most chess *playing* is done by rather bright
people for the fun of it. If you get to be a top player or a top
programmer, it's possible that you may *also* make some real money
out of chess, otherwise you're SOL.
>Say Dr Hyatt He gave 40 years of his life to develop Crafty why will
>he give away the code for free? Will you give all the money you earned
>in your lifetime for free?
You seem a little confused. Dr Hyatt is not, AFAIK, giving
away any, let alone all, of the money he has earned. He is making
available the source of a program he has written. As have many of
us, not just chess programs but all the Gnu stuff, Linux, Sim City,
and a zillion other things that you can download.
Charging for software does not come cost-free. You are then
expected to provide help and maintenance to those who have bought it,
you may have to employ people to help with these things, you may have
to fight legal actions to defend your product. Equally, open-sourcing
it does not come benefit-free. You open up your product to a wider
audience, who will provide you with bug reports, ideas for development,
and possibly invitations to conferences. Guess which is more fun.
>I can design GetClub better than Rybka and any other Chess Program in
>the World
Actions speak louder than words.
> But since there is no money in doing that I have no interest
>in wasting more time.
Fortunately for science, most bright people are driven by
other things than money.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | |
Date: 31 May 2008 11:37:10
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Strength do not matter Money Matters.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In Opensource Engine only Average Programmers will work? Why will they
> leave High paying Jobs and work for something that do not pays?
>
> Say Dr Hyatt He gave 40 years of his life to develop Crafty why will
It's only been 33 years. I said 40 years by mistake. But I do expect him
to still be doing computer chess in 7 years.
The only person who might be still active after almost that long might be
Kittenger, who did MyChess. He might possibly still be doing computer chess
for hand helds and stuff, but I'm not sure. I was never able to contact
him.
> he give away the code for free? Will you give all the money you earned
He gives it away for free because he's generous, because he cares more about
computer chess and being open than he does about being greedy and secretive.
In the old days, CrayBlitz was closed source, although even then he was open
about many details of it.
And since his job (and therefor his family, home, food, etc.) doesn't depend
on computer chess, he can let it be open and enjoy it.
> in your lifetime for free?
>
> Chess Master & other Big Companies gives $100,000 to a good Programmer
> Why will he do the same job for free?
How do you know it's $100,000?
I bet its closer to half that. Normal job salary. Some programmers can
make a lot of money is some areas (100k or 200k or more), but most don't.
Since chess programs aren't a high profit industry, most probably make a
normal salary, just like any other 9 to 5 employee.
It's probably much more likely to be a paying job just like any other. The
only difference is they are in a field they love, rather than it being a job
they have to do.
> I can design GetClub better than Rybka and any other Chess Program in
> the World But since there is no money in doing that I have no interest
> in wasting more time.
That's your choice. Nobody is going to talk you out of that choice, just
like nobody talked you into it.
> Even Rybka is not earning much. Weaker programs are earning more than
> the Stronger ones as for average player looses every game So it does
> not matter which program is stronger.
People like friendly user interfaces, and friendly packaging, and many of
them like having a program that isn't so strong they have no chance of
winning.
And people can be fickle... why buy a chess program that can wipe the floor
with them, when they can use some free program and a GUI such as Arena and
get the same result?
One of the main reasons they buy the top programs is really the "Gotta have
it!" syndrome. It's the latest top program that won such & such
tournament, and they just have to have it just to say they have it.
> People look for Other features and not at Strength as much.
>
> It is only a few research people who think abt the strength. But it do
> not give money. It needs a million dollar investment But without
> return no one will waste that much money.
Why does it need a million dollar investment? I doubt any computer chess
company has ever done a million dollar investment. (With the exception of
IBM to do Deep Blue, and that was part genuine research, part publicity
stunt. Cray might have, if you add up all the computer time they donated to
Hyatt and others over the years, But that was often idle computer time
anyway. When higher priority jobs came along, his program would be bumped
to cheaper systems, even if it was during a tournament.)
Of course, I don't guess it matters....
You've said you are dropping your chess program and wont improve it any and
wont be participating in computer chess anymore, since there's no money in
it and there's no chance of you becoming rich.
(shrug)
Bye.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
Date: 30 May 2008 16:07:08
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
Mapleleaf wrote:
>
>Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top engine
>you need to be secretive about what you re programming.
>
>This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list (let's
>say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
>
>What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source project
> with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine again?
>
>(That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
>right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
In my opinion, the argument that in order to have a top engine
you need to be secretive about what you are programming is flawed.
By the same Logic, Microsoft Windows should be of higher quality
than BSD -- after all, Microsoft can start with BSD aand add
secret improvements, no?
In the real world, the architecture of a program's early
design has a huge impact on whether one can simply steal
ideas from some other design.
An analogy is FORTH and C++. If a C++ programmer tries
to do things the C++ way in FORTH, he comes to the
conclusion that FORTH is inferior to C++. If a FORTH
programmer tries to do things the FORTH way in C++, he
comes to the conclusion that C++ is inferior to FORTH.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 23:04:43
From: Mapleleaf
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
I basically agree with what you are saying here.
It seems to me the best engine would come down to having the best
talent. That can sometimes be in a commercial project, but, it can be
in an open source one as well.
Guy Macon wrote:
> Mapleleaf wrote:
>> Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top engine
>> you need to be secretive about what you re programming.
>>
>> This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list (let's
>> say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
>>
>> What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source project
>> with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine again?
>>
>> (That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
>> right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
>
> In my opinion, the argument that in order to have a top engine
> you need to be secretive about what you are programming is flawed.
>
> By the same Logic, Microsoft Windows should be of higher quality
> than BSD -- after all, Microsoft can start with BSD aand add
> secret improvements, no?
>
> In the real world, the architecture of a program's early
> design has a huge impact on whether one can simply steal
> ideas from some other design.
>
> An analogy is FORTH and C++. If a C++ programmer tries
> to do things the C++ way in FORTH, he comes to the
> conclusion that FORTH is inferior to C++. If a FORTH
> programmer tries to do things the FORTH way in C++, he
> comes to the conclusion that C++ is inferior to FORTH.
>
|
| | | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 11:39:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
Martin Brown <
|
| | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 16:21:47
From: Tony M
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:24:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 13:06:02
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
"Tony M" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:24:25 +0100, Martin Brown
> <
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 02:04:56
From: Tony M
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:06:02 -0500, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote:
>"Tony M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:24:25 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 21:49:12
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Guest <[email protected]> wrote:
>And I don't think many other chess programmers are going to visit here.
>This newsgroup has too much of a stigma now days. In the old days, this is
>where everybody came. But all the flaming and off topic discussions and sam
>sloan stuff and trolling etc. drove away nearly everybody.
This is largely within the control of "nearly everybody".
AAMOF, not only have some of the most interesting computer chess
people left, but also most of the more objectionable flamers, so
I suspect that if BobH and others were to return, there wouldn't
in fact be any problem. It's not *difficult* to ignore the OT
stuff, and possibly if more computer chess stuff appeared then
the OT stuff would dwindle.
If people like you fold up their tents and disappear into
the night even without being attacked in any way, it's more than
a pity, it's a recipe for making the group worse for the rest of
us. For my own part, I have been posting to this group for as
long as it has existed, always using my own name, and there have
been no evil consequences. I don't intend to change. YMMV.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 21:21:42
From: Guest
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
"Andy Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Guest <[email protected]> wrote:
>>And I don't think many other chess programmers are going to visit here.
>>This newsgroup has too much of a stigma now days. In the old days, this
>>is
>>where everybody came. But all the flaming and off topic discussions and
>>sam
>>sloan stuff and trolling etc. drove away nearly everybody.
>
> This is largely within the control of "nearly everybody".
> AAMOF, not only have some of the most interesting computer chess
> people left, but also most of the more objectionable flamers, so
> I suspect that if BobH and others were to return, there wouldn't
> in fact be any problem. It's not *difficult* to ignore the OT
> stuff, and possibly if more computer chess stuff appeared then
> the OT stuff would dwindle.
I can't really disagree with your argument. It makes sense. I agree to
some degree.
But it's not really practical, either.
Unless there is some reason to come back, most aren't going to bother.
They tend to be busy with their own lives and work and prefer to spend their
time in forums and mailing lists that have a higher level of information
content.
Why go somewhere that has few real computer chess messages, and most of
those tend to be beginner level, when the places you are already at has a
good level of participation and interesting messages?
Telling everybody "Hey, let's quit here and all go over to RGCC" isn't going
to work.
Once the damage is done, trying to get people to come back isn't easy.
And most people don't do newsgroups anyway. They do forums & mailing lists
these days.
> If people like you fold up their tents and disappear into
> the night even without being attacked in any way, it's more than
My interest comes and goes. There are some years I have no interest in
computer chess at all, and other years I can't get enough.
Currently, I'm somewhat interested and I'm doing more lurking than anything
else.
But if there isn't anything interesting in here, then there's no great
reason to come here every day.
> a pity, it's a recipe for making the group worse for the rest of
> us. For my own part, I have been posting to this group for as
> long as it has existed, always using my own name, and there have
> been no evil consequences. I don't intend to change. YMMV.
That is entirely your choice.
A lot of people feel that way.
But I got into that habit back in the days of dial-up BBSing and Fido-Net
and so on. I don't intend to change.
And I'm old enough to know that what gets made public can't be made
un-public. Things can come back to haunt you later.
>
> --
> Andy Walker
> Nottingham
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 23:09:12
From: Mapleleaf
Subject: Re: Can an open source chess program become number one?
|
It's quite possible that an open source engine while not the 'best'
engine, could be "near the top", and even maintain a top spot...if as I
suggested above as a project it attracted decent talent.
If some famous programmer decided to be the project leader (I dunno..if
like a Linus Torvalds or something) on a site like source forge, for
example, maybe a lot of people would be attracted to working on such a
project part time. (ie. there are reasons other than monetary ones to
work on computer projects).
Martin Brown wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> Mapleleaf wrote:
>>> Someone suggested in another thread that in order to have a top
>>> engine you need to be secretive about what you re programming.
>>>
>>> This implies that the engine at the top of the SSDF rating list
>>> (let's say) will from now on typically be a commercial engine.
>>>
>>> What I'm wondering is, is it possible to organize an open source
>>> project with enough good talent to make a competitive "free" engine
>>> again?
>
> Possible, but probably very difficult now to catch up with the top
> engines in a realistic scenario. They won't stand still. Every now and
> then a new kid on the block may come along with an engine that smashes
> all in its path - a bit like Rybka has done.
>
> And I'd be surprised if any engine that did make it to the top (or even
> near the top) did not go commercial to recoup development costs.
> Programmers have to eat!
>>>
>>> (That's what I think this question really comes down to...getting the
>>> right talent...not "hanging onto your secrets" so much).
>>
>> In my opinion, the argument that in order to have a top engine you
>> need to be secretive about what you are programming is flawed.
>
> I think there is an element of truth in it. Having some new heuristic
> not present in other engines which gave slightly better performance
> would all other things being equal make a significant difference.
>
> If the code is public then it will only be a short time before everyone
> has the same trick incorporated. The private opening book traps against
> other engines known weaknesses epitomise the secrecy issues.
>>
>> By the same Logic, Microsoft Windows should be of higher quality
>> than BSD -- after all, Microsoft can start with BSD aand add
>> secret improvements, no?
>
> It could be if they did it right. Alas that is not the M$ way, they tend
> to add at least as many defects as improvements to working code.
>>
>> In the real world, the architecture of a program's early design has a
>> huge impact on whether one can simply steal ideas from some other design.
>
> OTOH a good idea that gives a program a serious edge over its rivals in
> critical positions like singular extentions (to take a historic example)
> was extremely potent when some engines had it and most did not.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
