Albert Silver wrote:mhull wrote:Albert Silver wrote:Because you are wrong? A contribution doesn't have to be charitable (free). A contribution is when something is added.
Maybe this will help:
Etymology of Contribution
Nothing is being added in a commercial exchange, unless the exchange is intentionally generous on one side. The idea of a contribution is one of giving, not receiving or transacting business. Don suggested that his sense of what he received in the exchange was so great from his POV, that it was more a gift than a transaction. But contributions are an act of giving, not a perception of receiving. Charities seek contributions. Commercial transactions are not contributions,
obviously.
I think what we are seeing is latent Rybka groupie-ism. People are/were so delighted with it (after the long reign of Shredder) that it was though the Beatles had come to town. Superlatives soon lost all meaning. Adoring fans would have mortgaged their homes to have a private audience with the greater coder to convey their thanks for the privilige of purchasing such a treasure. Anyone who doesn't wince at the thought of all the fawning Rybka posts that used to paper this forum has lost all sense of proportion and decorum.
The half-life of this syndrome seems to be long. The idea that this product is actually a great and gracious contribution to computer chess makes a mockery of the forum(s) from whence it came in the first place, where ideas were exchanged freely. But the now-sainted programmer has yet to prophesy his second advent, at which time he may deign to shine a couple of photons of his glory to illuminate the shadows wherein the benighted code grinders of CCC struggle to solve their little two-banana problems.
Saints (real ones) preserve us from such obsequious political correctness.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented that the word contribution is not philanthropism, but means to
add, thus Rybka, which is the subject here, has added to the field.
Your comment doesn't agree with the English definition. Contribution does not mean merely to add. The principle connotation carried in the word is of either of a share of a group effort, philanthropy or a tax levy. Pick one of those three because that's all there is. Look at the definition in any normal English dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contribution
http://www.elook.org/dictionary/contribution.html
http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/contribution/
http://www.yourdictionary.com/contribution
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictio ... ntribution
Just look at the synonyms from Merriam-Webster:
Synonyms: alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy
You'll notice that if anyone in a Rybka transaction is contributing anything, it's the customer.
Albert Silver wrote:
Rybka FYI is not a commercial transaction, it is a chess engine, so stating that a commercial transaction is not a contribution is irrelevant. As an engine, it has added to computer chess and to chess itself.
Rybka is nothing but a commercial transaction, for you cannot partake of it unless you purchase it (or steal it). It is not a contribution, but a sold product.
Albert Silver wrote:You then go on this extremely long diatribe on groupie-ism, worshipping the programmer, and god knows what else. What on earth does any of this have to do with the term contribution not meaning obligatorily your narrow, and incorrect, definition of it as an act of charity?
It would seem to have everything to do with the pretzel-logic being employed to support the idea that Rybka is a contribution.
But I hereby acknowledge your reasoning is not because of latent groupie-ism, since your assertion is that the extent of Rybka's "contribution" was that it was merely added to a list of chess programs, which actually does cost nothing.
) and that slowed progress a lot.