BB+ on the matter

[michiguel]

CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.

Take away computer science, and CC doesn't exist. Take away CC, and computer science can still exist. Maybe a real scientist can tell us what you call one set that cannot exist without the other, but the other set can exist without it?

Take away chess, and CC doesn't exist. Take away CC, and chess can still exist. Maybe a real scientist can tell us what you call one set that cannot exist without the other, but the other set can exist without it?

Cute try, but you are playing with words, building a fallacy. What you mention is typical of what I said: two sets that intersect, nothing more, nothing less. BTW, You smarty pants reference to a real scientist is uncalled for.

Miguel

[Sean Evans]

Deep Blue made _no_ contribution to "computer chess" by beating Kasparov. DB made a contribution by publishing ideas, results, etc... DB made a "contribution" to chess (not computer chess) by increasing interest. DB hurt CC more than it helped with regard to beating Kasparov. Fortunately their technical contributions were significant.

Bob, DB was the first computer chess hardware/software to beat a World Champion. The match attracted and garnered much attention to computer chess and chess itself. It was probably the second most important chess match behind only the 1972 Fischer v. Spassky match. I actually see the DB match as a major turning point in computer chess. People became less interested in computer chess vs. human tournaments as "It Has All Been Done Before". The match ended the golden age of computer chess, where humans still had a chance to win a match, the golden age is now over. We are now in the modern age where computer chess programs play like Caissa and we are mere mortals DB did add to computer chess both positive and negative attributes.

Rybka is helping to pull other chess engines along, by being better. It encourages other computer chess authors to improve, both for commercial purposes as well as being the *best*. We all want to win, it is our nature. So Rybka is adding to computer chess knowledge by inspiring others to improve. IMHO Rybka has Fruit code in it and possibly...dare we say..."Crafty Code" in it?!

It would not surprise me if several of the top commercial and amateur programs have code either cloned or derived from other programs that have open source code. This sharing of ideas, although somewhat under handed *does* help to improve computer chess code. However, I do agree with you that original thinking and creativity will be the *key* to taking even greater strides into the future.

On a side note, I notice I cannot download Crafty for my IPOD, would it be possible to create a Crafty version for IPod, IPad and IPhone? These platforms are going to be the future. Please read the article Supercomputers 'will fit in a sugar cube', IBM says

Cordially,

Sean

[K I Hyams]

It looks like your interpretation of word "contribution" is very different from most of English-speaking population.

That is definitely not the case. If you ask "the man on the Clapham omnibus" for his opinion, he will tell you the same thing as Matthew has. Your interpretation is far more esoteric.

[Milos]

Rybka is helping to pull other chess engines along, by being better. It encourages other computer chess authors to improve, both for commercial purposes as well as being the *best*. We all want to win, it is our nature. So Rybka is adding to computer chess knowledge by inspiring others to improve.

Loads of crap. You Rybka fans repeat endlessly, I will repeat it endlessly.
Rybka easy jump and the way it gained its first 800 elo just demotivated authors. Great man Fabien lost interest in computer chess because of scambag Vas.
Moreover, Rybka's domination led to ppl loose interest in competition and development of new ides. It was even more pronounced by wrong information deliberately infused by Vas about importance of evaluation and unimportance of search.
Moreover, when there is no competition but one competitor is much better than others the overall quality is much worse. You have numerous examples for this in the world of sport.
So, to conclude all this Rybka inspiring argument is just BS.

[Milos]

Supercomputers 'will fit in a sugar cube', IBM says

Another load of advertising BS. They were lucky someone pulled strings so they got nano-tera founding and now they have to sell it somehow.
It will never be a cube. No solution to power dissipation, no replacement for CMOS. Not in near future, not in relatively distant future, certainly not in next 40 years.

[mhull]

CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.

Take away computer science, and CC doesn't exist. Take away CC, and computer science can still exist. Maybe a real scientist can tell us what you call one set that cannot exist without the other, but the other set can exist without it?

Take away chess, and CC doesn't exist. Take away CC, and chess can still exist. Maybe a real scientist can tell us what you call one set that cannot exist without the other, but the other set can exist without it?

Cute try, but you are playing with words, building a fallacy. What you mention is typical of what I said: two sets that intersect, nothing more, nothing less. BTW, You smarty pants reference to a real scientist is uncalled for.

Miguel

Sophistry. The claim by Don was that the contribution was to computer chess. You are removing the computer from the equation as though he'd said the contribution was to chess. It is you who are trying to get cute by playing with words. A particular kind of chess, CC, is a subset of CS, period.

[Graham Banks]

..........Great man Fabien lost interest in computer chess because of scambag Vas..............

Really? Never heard that from Ryan Benitez, who had pretty good contact with Fabien at the time. My understanding is that he just moved on to other challenges.

[mhull]

CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.

Perhaps you like to revise your remarks:

[michiguel]

CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.

Perhaps you like to revise your remarks:

Yes, nice graphic. That is exactly what I mean, so I do not need to revise anything.

Miguel
EDIT: No sorry, I read too fast, that is not what I mean. That is a fraction of CC that is outside of CS.

[michiguel]

CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.

Perhaps you like to revise your remarks:

Yes, nice graphic. That is exactly what I mean, so I do not need to revise anything.

Miguel
EDIT: No sorry, I read too fast, that is not what I mean. That is a fraction of CC that is outside of CS.

Code: Select all

/======================\
|   Chess              |
|                      | 
|  /-------------------\                      
|  |                   |                       
|  |            /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
|  |            |      |                    |
|  |   CC       |      |      CS            |
|  |            |      |                    |
|  \------------\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
|                      |
\======================/ 

Miguel