Ron Nelson Redux

[Fernando]

I am worried. Several weeks has come and go and no new posts about Ron Nelson and his programming.
It is an alarming lack of moral and zest.
So...

I postulate that Nelson not even programmed Chess Challenger 7 regards
Fern

[Steve B]

Well it was only 4 days ago when Sir Bryan posted that now conclusive bit of information where the V.P. of Excalibur himself said Nelson programmed the Excalibur computers which of course includes the GM/Mirage:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70358#70358

I guess this takes a big bite out of the Controversy Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

Well it was only 4 days ago when Sir Bryan posted that now conclusive bit of information where the V.P. of Excalibur himself said Nelson programmed the Excalibur computers which of course includes the GM/Mirage:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70358#70358

I guess this takes a big bite out of the Controversy Regards
Steve

That conclusion depends on the degree of faith you put in the VP.
I guess these executive kind of guys knows very little of the technicalities of this own business. MAYBE he believes such a thing because Nelson did work, as before in Fidelity, in the hardware aspect of the game. Or he can be right.
We do not know.
Else: if something was made clear in the long discussion, is how much complex this realm of engine authorship is these days.

In fact I have reached a point according with...

I believe Nelson was just the main janitor in Fidelity and the coffee man in Excalibur regards
fern

[Steve B]

That conclusion depends on the degree of faith you put in the VP.
I guess these executive kind of guys knows very little of the technicalities of this own business.

The V.P. was fairly sophisticated when he told Bryan that back in Fidelity Nelson handled hardware and system issues once the Spracklens took over Engine programming

his post here:
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70370#70370

he clearly knows what he is talking about

To Deny Nelson credit for Excalibur computers now would be absurd
Facts Are Facts Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

That conclusion depends on the degree of faith you put in the VP.
I guess these executive kind of guys knows very little of the technicalities of this own business.

The V.P. was fairly sophisticated when he told Bryan that back in Fidelity Nelson handled hardware and system issues once the Spracklens took over Engine programming

his post here:
http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70370#70370

he clearly knows what he is talking about

To Deny Nelson credit for Excalibur computers now would be absurd
Facts Are Facts Regards
Steve

Of course, Steven, just joking. Nelson deserves our respect and even affection.
If I even launch a chess computer company I will ask his assistance.

Great Men are always deprecated regards
Fern

[Monsieur Plastique]

Not trying on purpose to be overly pedantic, but what I read in Steve's links only relates to hardware and system programming. These things are different to writing the actual chess engine. The system programming tasks basically relate to developing and maintaining the actual operating environment under which the engine runs. Hardware is self-explanatory but it goes hand in hand with the system programming.

I hasten to add that obviously none of the above preclude Nelson from doing engine work as well - I'm just pointing out that nothing I have read actually says that specifically. As I've said often enough I think he did most of the engine work as well, though I've always maintained not when it comes to the GM.

Still, those linked comments could certainly provide some clarity as to the confusion or debate over the origins of the GM. For example, you could correctly say that "Nelson programmed the GM" if he was responsible for the operating environment and hardware whilst using an engine delivered by a third party.

[Steve B]

Not trying on purpose to be overly pedantic, but what I read in Steve's links only relates to hardware and system programming. These things are different to writing the actual chess engine. The system programming tasks basically relate to developing and maintaining the actual operating environment under which the engine runs. Hardware is self-explanatory but it goes hand in hand with the system programming.

I hasten to add that obviously none of the above preclude Nelson from doing engine work as well - I'm just pointing out that nothing I have read actually says that specifically.

The first post by Bryan clearly says he was the programmer of all Excalibur Computers
ill post it again...

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70358#70358

the second post differentiates that from i/o and system stuff at Fidelilty

ill post that again..

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70370#70370


i guess we can now all question the written word?

Bryan can confirm all of this i guess

Amazing Regards
Steve

[Monsieur Plastique]

I did read both your linked statements before commenting. Having worked in computers since the early days, I knew many people who were "programmers" and did "programming" yet never wrote a single piece of software that did anything any end-user of any product would actually recognise, interact with or even have any knowledge of it's existence (unless they understood that people have to write low level assembler code to actually make a piece of hardware work).

So although I read both the statements it still does not provide enough detail as to the segregation of programming duties. Or, to put it another way, the first linked statement could merely be a generalisation of the second statement (which in itself is about as general as you could possibly get).

[Steve B]

I did read both your linked statements before commenting. Having worked in computers since the early days, I knew many people who were "programmers" and did "programming" yet never wrote a single piece of software that did anything any end-user of any product would actually recognise, interact with or even have any knowledge of it's existence (unless they understood that people have to write low level assembler code to actually make a piece of hardware work).

So although I read both the statements it still does not provide enough detail as to the segregation of programming duties. Or, to put it another way, the first linked statement could merely be a generalisation of the second statement (which in itself is about as general as you could possibly get).

Well i guess Bryan can comment when he reads this thread
he was in contact with the V.P.
but it seems quite clear to me..
my take from the posts are quite simply..

At Excalibur he was the ENGINE AUTHOR for Excalibur Computers
while at Fidelity after the Spracklens arrival he was involved with other aspects aside from being the engine author

Bryan? Regards
Steve

[Fernando]

I did read both your linked statements before commenting. Having worked in computers since the early days, I knew many people who were "programmers" and did "programming" yet never wrote a single piece of software that did anything any end-user of any product would actually recognise, interact with or even have any knowledge of it's existence (unless they understood that people have to write low level assembler code to actually make a piece of hardware work).

So although I read both the statements it still does not provide enough detail as to the segregation of programming duties. Or, to put it another way, the first linked statement could merely be a generalisation of the second statement (which in itself is about as general as you could possibly get).

Well i guess Bryan can comment when he reads this thread
he was in contact with the V.P.
but it seems quite clear to me..
my take from the posts are quite simply..

At Excalibur he was the ENGINE AUTHOR for Excalibur Computers
while at Fidelity after the Spracklens arrival he was involved with other aspects aside from being the engine author

Bryan? Regards
Steve

I heartily add myself to your point because...

Still in debt with you regards
Fern

[spacious_mind]

Stating that he did program all Excalibur Computers does not mean he was the "Chess engine programmer". That would be the same as what David Barnes did at Saitek. Doesn't make Barnes the programmer of the Morsch chess program.

Besides we all know that he couldn't have programmed "ALL".

In business I don't like someone saying "I believe so". It normally means it probably isn't so

Either it is or it isn't. Not I think so, or I believe so.

We know that most of the computers from Excalibur came from somewhere else. Therefore the "I believe he did everything" is already flawed.

Best regards

[Steve B]

Either it is or it isn't. Not I think so, or I believe so.

We know that most of the computers from Excalibur came from somewhere else. Therefore the "I believe he did everything" is already flawed.

Best regards

the fact that Excalibur sold computers that were obvious clones (I.E.
Karpov 2294 ) does not negate the V.P's comments
to make an argument like that just seems like a desperate attempt to poke holes into the V.P.s comments
as does the "i believe" argument

as i posted above Bryan can say if my interpretations of his two posts are correct or not

Simple As That Regards
Steve

[spacious_mind]

Either it is or it isn't. Not I think so, or I believe so.

We know that most of the computers from Excalibur came from somewhere else. Therefore the "I believe he did everything" is already flawed.

Best regards

the fact that Excalibur sold computers that were obvious clones (I.E.
Karpov 2294 ) does not negate the V.P's comments
to make an argument like that just seems like a desperate attempt to poke holes into the V.P.s comments
as does the "i believe" argument

as i posted above Bryan can say if my interpretations of his two posts are correct or not

Simple As That Regards
Steve

Sorry, Steve don't agree. It's a blanket statement and remains a guess. As a VP he probably can't tell you the truth if he wanted to anyway. I can't talk details about my previous Employer and neither could I if I were to leave my present Employer. So the "I believe so" statement become very appropriate where needed.

It's is easy, Bryan can ask him to be specific and recall the ones he knows where Ron Nelson wrote chess engine, surely as a VP he can would know exactly which ones. Or does he mean tinkering with features and stuff. Obviously he must have done that as well.

PS. I wasn't even thinking about Novag.

Best regards

[Steve B]

As a VP he probably can't tell you the truth if he wanted to anyway.

It's is easy, Bryan can ask him to be specific and recall the ones he knows where Ron Nelson wrote chess engine, surely as a VP he can would know exactly which ones. Or does he mean tinkering with features and stuff. Obviously he must have done that as well.

Best regards

do you seriously think the V.P. will rattle off every single computer Nelson programmed?
failing that you seriously will not believe Nelson was the engine author if Bryan confirms my interpretation posted above?


to be honest i expected the "guy dosent know what he is talking about" argument to be made sooner or later
just like the "Nelson must have exaggerated his role" argument when he personally told me he programmed the GM/Mirage

the V.P. seemed to know quite clearly Nelson's Role with Fidelity
no ambiguity there.fairly detailed information .

i have been answering questions about dedicated chess computers on the internet since 1997 ..on several different forums ..thousands of questions over the years ..
and i always make sure to be very careful when i post an answer to a question
if Bryan can confirm my interpretation then the issue is closed for me and i will have no problem at all answering anyone who asks that it was Ron Nelson who programmed the GM/Mirage

if my interpretation was wrong then i agree the issue remains open

Regards
Steve

[Bryan Whitby]

I'm going to prepare a statement then post later today.
Reading emails regards
Bryan