chess programs should not be free or too cheap

[Don]

(...)

Hi Don, was this a response to me or someone else?

If you switch to "thread view" you can see Don was replying to the OP's post.

I wasn't responding to anyone - just thinking out loud.

[syzygy]

(...)

Hi Don, was this a response to me or someone else?

If you switch to "thread view" you can see Don was replying to the OP's post.

I wasn't responding to anyone - just thinking out loud.

Well ok, but the inspiration for it ("the pretty unique perspective") came from the opening post, right?

I believe Robert was wondering whether your were specifically responding to him because in "flat view" your post immediately follows his.

Anyway, I fully agree with your point that it is completely up to a program's authors to decide on a price and/or license, just as it is up to anybody else to decide what to do with his or her money (after tax ).

[Don]

(...)

Hi Don, was this a response to me or someone else?

If you switch to "thread view" you can see Don was replying to the OP's post.

I wasn't responding to anyone - just thinking out loud.

Well ok, but the inspiration for it ("the pretty unique perspective") came from the opening post, right?

I believe Robert was wondering whether your were specifically responding to him because in "flat view" your post immediately follows his.

Anyway, I fully agree with your point that it is completely up to a program's authors to decide on a price and/or license, just as it is up to anybody else to decide what to do with his or her money (after tax ).

I was responding to the initial post by kgburcham when I said it was a unique perspective, because it's the first time I have heard anyone say that programs didn't cost enough and that there should not be free ones.

Although I don't specifically agree with that, he makes a good point that because there is no money in computer chess it won't attract the most talented people. Even though I'm not that talented, I would not be doing computer chess if it were big money I were after.

Rare is the person who would be considered a super-talent and would put huge energy into computer chess and would not be seduced away from it for better opportunities.

[fern]

Karl:
The values that the market impose are not coincident with the value of the things understood as his intrinsic value. Van Gog was incapable of selling his stuff and these days every thing he did cost millions.
Or now you go to amazon and you download the full work of Aristotle by 0.99 bucks.
Its all depend of availability and how many people want something and how many alternatives are.
It is kind of essential in the mechanics of things.
It is not worthy a fart to complain about that, no more than to complain about gravitational laws

Fern

[shrapnel]

Yes exactly, the programs are so damn strong--hardware is a small part anymore. Yes I know you have big hardware.
You and I can go to any game server and play against a street person using Stockfish on a laptop and end up being a challenging game.
I want a high priced strong chess program that a few have.

Hi kgb
Another point I would like to add to your wish-list (which I fully agree with), is that the Engine should scale really well with increasing strength of the Hardware.
Here, I'd like to clarify that nearly all Engines become stronger with increasing strength of hardware, but not at the rate at which Komodo 6 improves !
This is yet to be confirmed by others.
I think Larry Kaufmann has also realized this from his Testing, but he doesn't seem to be convinced by his own findings !
Anyway, whether by design of the Engine authors or mere fluke, my findings are that Komodo 6 scales EXTREMELY well to increasing strength of hardware.
I really hope that the upcoming Houdini 4 is not only very strong but also scales very well to increasing strength of hardware !
Otherwise, people like you and me will continue to be held to draws by any idiot sitting with a crummy core2duo laptop with Houdini 3 installed in it !
Regards

[gerold]

Upgrading to intel core i7-3970x. Mostly for other things besides chess.
I still have a good % of wins vs. 6-8 core machines with my little core2duo. Ashamed of myself with my little free engine.

Best,
Gerold.

[shrapnel]

You should be !

[rcmaddox]

first of all, I don't believe you are poor.
second I don't want 3200 elo offered to the poor.
If someone is unemployed or is on disability, I don't want that person dragging down my hobby because of his misfortune.
He should take up a free hobby, like checkers or otb chess, I want computer chess to be expensive for some.
kgburcham

Batista meets Ayn Rand.

[syzygy]

first of all, I don't believe you are poor.
second I don't want 3200 elo offered to the poor.
If someone is unemployed or is on disability, I don't want that person dragging down my hobby because of his misfortune.
He should take up a free hobby, like checkers or otb chess, I want computer chess to be expensive for some.
kgburcham

Batista meets Ayn Rand.

kgburcham simply chose the wrong hobby. He should have picked spacewalking instead of computer chess.

[shrapnel]

first of all, I don't believe you are poor.
second I don't want 3200 elo offered to the poor.
If someone is unemployed or is on disability, I don't want that person dragging down my hobby because of his misfortune.
He should take up a free hobby, like checkers or otb chess, I want computer chess to be expensive for some.
kgburcham

Batista meets Ayn Rand.

I don't see anything wrong in what my friend kgburcham wrote that he should be made fun of. He is entitled to his point of view.
He is not stopping anyone from playing chess ; merely saying that he when spends money on something, he wants his full moneys worth . What is wrong with that ?
If he wants the best software which not everyone can afford, he is also prepared to pay a heavy price for it. That's fair, I think, so again, what's wrong with that ?
Everyone likes a free lunch, but just because someone wants better food and is prepared to pay for it, why should he be criticized or asked to go for spacewalks ?