My anticommercial thinking (POLL)

[Strelkaman]

I think the learning system,the 50 moves rule are 2 cases that some Engine staff uses to show to ppl" Hey Look at this!!I have a learning system now,a 50 moves rule,so that's why my engine goes commercial now.Make the update"Really if you think about the contribution to the evolution of chess engines by some people has been stuck in purpose.The profit is the magic word nowadays.

Remember back in time we had Robbolito,fruit,fire,ivanhoe.What about fire?Fire had the fastest speed operation system those days.And these engines were free.Those people were working just to offer a nice simple engine with super-human abilities just for free.

And then some people started making engines that were strong but not very strong.Suddenly the power of their chess engines went high in a very short time.Have you ever wonder why?And then they used this popularity for profit.But think about what they offer.

They offer a chess software who the abilities depends on your pc performance.You pay for a chess engine that works on a dual processor on a quad processor.You pay for the update in version of the same engine.Because the difference of the free engine to the commercial is zero without the pc performance.Look at those tests.A free version of the same chess engine in some tests win the commercial one.A commercial engine is not unbeatable.So why you pay?

I would like to pay if i had a chess engine that has a 4000 Elo Performance and the main engine opponents had 3500.But now we are talking about 50 or 100 Elo difference?

Look at the 1 core of Strelka.It beats the commercial engines.It doesnt win the war,but is a little less than equal.Look the test on 64-bits.Now wonder about the next Strelka MP and think this.Strelka with the 1 core does everything.It doesnt use the power of cores to show you the best performance.It does so with the 1 core already.But people want the MP solution.So Strelka team works for the MP engine.Thats why i think Strelka walks on the right path

Because chess engines must be free for everyone.Chess engine is not a cluster,is not a deep blue monster system.Is just a software and a software that has a different performance in totally on I7 than on a dual core

[Kingghidorah]

I didn't vote either way because I think both ways are good/bad

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I didn't vote either way because I think both ways are good/bad

+1

[zullil]

I like free-market capitalism.

No one can force you to purchase an engine. If you believe a product is over-priced, then don't buy it. The market should "correct" the pricing.

Really, there are no "free" engines, in the sense that building an engine requires a lot of time and energy (and talent.) Maybe it's best to think of "free" engines as gifts to us all. Something like a charitable donation made by the programmer.

[Sylwy]

Hey Dimitri !

Nothing about PRIVATES ?

From Diep to Pandix.
From The Baron to Rookie !

Here is the true passion and innovation in computer chess, believe me.
No capitalist money or for free proletcultism.
Art for art , science for science , love for love - this means a burning passion. No interest , no money , no consignment in history , just you and your love face to face. Do you know what that means, Dymitri ? Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx are big zeroes in history !


Have a nice Russian weekend !

SilvianR

[RoadWarrior]

A free version of the same chess engine in some tests win the commercial one. A commercial engine is not unbeatable.So why you pay?

Because I want to support the developers. Because I like the way that the commercial engine plays. Because it has one specific feature I can't find in a "free" engine. Because I want to play it against my private engine. Because I like capitalism. Because I dislike open source. Because I'm weird. Pick your favourite combination of reasons.

Because chess engines must be free for everyone.

A chess engine is certainly not free for its author, who typically puts months or years of time and hard work into his/her engine. So the author has every right to ask for money, and you have every right not to buy the result. Why are you so focused on persuading everybody else to think like you?

[Strelkaman]

A free version of the same chess engine in some tests win the commercial one. A commercial engine is not unbeatable.So why you pay?

Because I want to support the developers. Because I like the way that the commercial engine plays. Because it has one specific feature I can't find in a "free" engine. Because I want to play it against my private engine. Because I like capitalism. Because I dislike open source. Because I'm weird. Pick your favourite combination of reasons.

Because chess engines must be free for everyone.

A chess engine is certainly not free for its author, who typically puts months or years of time and hard work into his/her engine. So the author has every right to ask for money, and you have every right not to buy the result. Why are you so focused on persuading everybody else to think like you?

1.I just wrote my opinion.I don't want to persuade anyone
2.These specific features that you pay for having them,its time to think if they are worth-paying
3.I respect your thesis about Capitalism,but i like more the exchange form of economy.I work and you pay me with what i need.
4.If you read between the line you will see that i am for commerciality in cases such cluster systems or the deep blue situation.Its a complete chess system.So i put limits to commerciality.I don't erase commerciality in such cases
5.Commerciality doesn't maximize the level of antagonist in chess engines because the difference in ELO power between the engines is a little one.

But of course i respect your opinion

[geots]

I think the learning system,the 50 moves rule are 2 cases that some Engine staff uses to show to ppl" Hey Look at this!!I have a learning system now,a 50 moves rule,so that's why my engine goes commercial now.Make the update"Really if you think about the contribution to the evolution of chess engines by some people has been stuck in purpose.The profit is the magic word nowadays.

Remember back in time we had Robbolito,fruit,fire,ivanhoe.What about fire?Fire had the fastest speed operation system those days.And these engines were free.Those people were working just to offer a nice simple engine with super-human abilities just for free.

And then some people started making engines that were strong but not very strong.Suddenly the power of their chess engines went high in a very short time.Have you ever wonder why?And then they used this popularity for profit.But think about what they offer.

They offer a chess software who the abilities depends on your pc performance.You pay for a chess engine that works on a dual processor on a quad processor.You pay for the update in version of the same engine.Because the difference of the free engine to the commercial is zero without the pc performance.Look at those tests.A free version of the same chess engine in some tests win the commercial one.A commercial engine is not unbeatable.So why you pay?

I would like to pay if i had a chess engine that has a 4000 Elo Performance and the main engine opponents had 3500.But now we are talking about 50 or 100 Elo difference?

Look at the 1 core of Strelka.It beats the commercial engines.It doesnt win the war,but is a little less than equal.Look the test on 64-bits.Now wonder about the next Strelka MP and think this.Strelka with the 1 core does everything.It doesnt use the power of cores to show you the best performance.It does so with the 1 core already.But people want the MP solution.So Strelka team works for the MP engine.Thats why i think Strelka walks on the right path

Because chess engines must be free for everyone.Chess engine is not a cluster,is not a deep blue monster system.Is just a software and a software that has a different performance in totally on I7 than on a dual core

The major computer chess tournaments have been doing it a while. For me, it has nothing to do with the strongest engine any longer. It is who brings the best and most expensive hardware. And then people buy Junior 13 because it won the WCCC, and the last Ivanhoe I saw run against his commercial version ripped him apart 56-8. Me- I would be ashamed to ask more than 30 bucks for the "Deep Version" if it were mine, and 30 is 10 more than I think it is worth.

The hardware gets bigger and faster, the programs generally don't have to be that good any longer- they say wait till you see it on 8 cores. And sadly, the prices just keep going up. (When my dad was alive, he told me it would be easy to make the auto companies drop their prices- everyone, and I quote, "just quit buying the son of a bitches. That's all it takes.")

Engines like Houdini and Komodo have fair prices- their programs are worth what they charge. But who ever heard of paying 130 bucks for a "deep" version that the weakest Ivanhoe in the last 3 years could decapitate without even breathing hard.


george

[Strelkaman]

I think the learning system,the 50 moves rule are 2 cases that some Engine staff uses to show to ppl" Hey Look at this!!I have a learning system now,a 50 moves rule,so that's why my engine goes commercial now.Make the update"Really if you think about the contribution to the evolution of chess engines by some people has been stuck in purpose.The profit is the magic word nowadays.

Remember back in time we had Robbolito,fruit,fire,ivanhoe.What about fire?Fire had the fastest speed operation system those days.And these engines were free.Those people were working just to offer a nice simple engine with super-human abilities just for free.

And then some people started making engines that were strong but not very strong.Suddenly the power of their chess engines went high in a very short time.Have you ever wonder why?And then they used this popularity for profit.But think about what they offer.

They offer a chess software who the abilities depends on your pc performance.You pay for a chess engine that works on a dual processor on a quad processor.You pay for the update in version of the same engine.Because the difference of the free engine to the commercial is zero without the pc performance.Look at those tests.A free version of the same chess engine in some tests win the commercial one.A commercial engine is not unbeatable.So why you pay?

I would like to pay if i had a chess engine that has a 4000 Elo Performance and the main engine opponents had 3500.But now we are talking about 50 or 100 Elo difference?

Look at the 1 core of Strelka.It beats the commercial engines.It doesnt win the war,but is a little less than equal.Look the test on 64-bits.Now wonder about the next Strelka MP and think this.Strelka with the 1 core does everything.It doesnt use the power of cores to show you the best performance.It does so with the 1 core already.But people want the MP solution.So Strelka team works for the MP engine.Thats why i think Strelka walks on the right path

Because chess engines must be free for everyone.Chess engine is not a cluster,is not a deep blue monster system.Is just a software and a software that has a different performance in totally on I7 than on a dual core

The major computer chess tournaments have been doing it a while. For me, it has nothing to do with the strongest engine any longer. It is who brings the best and most expensive hardware. And then people buy Junior 13 because it won the WCCC, and the last Ivanhoe I saw run against his commercial version ripped him apart 56-8. Me- I would be ashamed to ask more than 30 bucks for the "Deep Version" if it were mine, and 30 is 10 more than I think it is worth.

The hardware gets bigger and faster, the programs generally don't have to be that good any longer- they say wait till you see it on 8 cores. And sadly, the prices just keep going up. (When my dad was alive, he told me it would be easy to make the auto companies drop their prices- everyone, and I quote, "just quit buying the son of a bitches. That's all it takes.")

Engines like Houdini and Komodo have fair prices- their programs are worth what they charge. But who ever heard of paying 130 bucks for a "deep" version that the weakest Ivanhoe in the last 3 years could decapitate without even breathing hard.


george

I agree a lot with your post George.Its all a matter of hardware nowadays.Its very sad that prices of a chess software keep going up depending on pc performances.Iam just saying with a complete chess system for commerciality pc+cores+chess software.For example Toshiba+8cores+chess software.Computer companies to absorb chess engines materials.This is the only cases i approve commerciality.I cannot accept commerciality just to buy a chess software.Its pointless for someone to have a dual processor to overcome a 5 core processor with the same software.So i think we have overestimated chess engines and we don't see the big pictures,that chess engines are sub-computer materials.We made the mistake to isolate chess engines and value them like they are solo computer machines.My simple idea for what iam saying is the chessnetbooks.A netbook dedicated only to chess analysis and play

[RoadWarrior]

3.I respect your thesis about Capitalism,but i like more the exchange form of economy.I work and you pay me with what i need.

This is way off-topic, but there are multiple issues with a barter economy:

* The need for a double coincidence of wants: For barter to occur between two people, both need to have what the other wants.
* The absence of a common measure of value: In a monetary economy, money plays the role of a measure of value of all goods, so their values can be measured against each other. This role is usually absent in a barter economy.
* The indivisibility of certain goods: If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another's goods, but can only pay with one indivisible unit of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur.
* The lack of standards for deferred payments: This is related to the absence of a common measure of value. It's only feasible if the debt is denominated in units of the good that will eventually be used in payment.
* The difficulty in storing wealth: If a society relies primarily on perishable goods, storing wealth for the future may be impractical. You have to use durable goods such as pigs or cattle for this purpose.