BB+ on the matter

[mhull]

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

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

[michiguel]

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

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

That is the point I am arguing. There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Digressing a bit, you may use a computer to do science, but in areas that are not in computer science, it may be computer chemistry, computer biology or something else. The contribution is in chemistry or biology etc.

Miguel

[mhull]

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

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

That is the point I am arguing. There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Digressing a bit, you may use a computer to do science, but in areas that are not in computer science, it may be computer chemistry, computer biology or something else. The contribution is in chemistry or biology etc.

Miguel

I take it from this that you agree that commercial Rybka is not a contribution to computer chess, only to chess.

[Michael Sherwin]

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

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

That is the point I am arguing. There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Digressing a bit, you may use a computer to do science, but in areas that are not in computer science, it may be computer chemistry, computer biology or something else. The contribution is in chemistry or biology etc.

Miguel

I think what you are looking for is three circles, C, CC, CS

C intersects CC but does not intersect CS

CC intersects both C and CS

C and CS do not intersect because when I am playing chess against a human I never use CS in any fashion to arrive at a move.
Even when I play against a machine I do not really consider CS in the decision (father might though, but what he does is 'not chess'). However, the machine uses CS to make its moves or it merely uses a human type book which is C, but not really CS. So, in my opinion C only interacts with CS indirectly through CC.

[Michael Sherwin]

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

You must admit this is incorrect. The proof is given by removing computer science from your diagram, which would erroneously leave CC as a set. Do the same in my diagram and CC correctly disappears. CC is created by the intersection of the two sets, chess and computer science.

That is the point I am arguing. There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Digressing a bit, you may use a computer to do science, but in areas that are not in computer science, it may be computer chemistry, computer biology or something else. The contribution is in chemistry or biology etc.

Miguel

I think what you are looking for is three circles, C, CC, CS

C intersects CC but does not intersect CS

CC intersects both C and CS

C and CS do not intersect because when I am playing chess against a human I never use CS in any fashion to arrive at a move.
Even when I play against a machine I do not really consider CS in the decision (father might though, but what he does is 'not chess'). However, the machine uses CS to make its moves or it merely uses a human type book which is C, but not really CS. So, in my opinion C only interacts with CS indirectly through CC.

It is really even more complicated!

If you think about it, computer science is not concerned with any one type of application. And computer chess only uses the tools that computer science has produced, with out caring about the science. Between computer chess and computer science is game theory and A.I. neither of which even require computer science at all. It just so happens that it is easier to automate chess on a tool created by computer science than it is to use paper and pencil. To program the computer for a task is merely to understand what has already been created for the programmer to use which maybe should be called application theory mixed with programming theory.

[bob]

I don't think anyone claimed he contributed to computer science - you added that yourself, trying to recast the argument to one which you can win.

You made that claim about his contribution to computer chess, which is a subset of computer science. Are you revising your statement now?

Computer chess is not a subset of computer science.

Miguel

Certainly it is. It comes under "artificial intelligence" in most any book you will find, and that is a pure computer science topic. AI is typically a core area on most any Ph.D. qualifying exam in computer science.

It is not a "subset". It "overlaps". There are many aspects of computer chess that are not computer science.

Miguel
PS: I might digress, but the scientific aspects of CC look more and more like "engineering" lately. But that is another issue.

Not sure that matters. Some computer science departments include engineering. Some engineering schools have computer engineering departments. Typically the engineering comes into play with things like DB's hardware, or fpga stuff. Computer science is about the software.

But AI has always been the umbrella discipline that computer chess and computer games fall under. And AI is a piece of computer science.

[bob]

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

Playing a game of strategy using a computer program is artificial intelligence, by definition. And no matter which way you cut it, that is a computer science domain. Yes, there is room for some engineering, as in DB, or Hydra, or Belle, etc. But those are engineering solutions to improve a computer science application by making it faster. Not by making it better. Even materials engineering comes into play as they try to find better materials with better heat transfer rates, as but one example. Then there are the cooling approaches from liquid N on up to near-room-temp superconductor research. But that is all about making a computer application run faster, not to change the application to make it somehow better...

[bob]

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.

What part would that be? the "computer" in "computer chess" is pretty specific. But the issue is, where is the _work_ done? Not where are the games played. And the work is done in computer science, not anywhere else.

[mhull]

There are lots of things you do with a computer that are not "science". For instance, building killer lines for the openings is computer chess, but it is not computer science.

Using an AI to build killer lines is using applied computer science. Any time you switch on the chess AI, you are utilizing computer science for chess.

[Dann Corbit]

The opinion I'm having about R3-Ippo stuff is that Vas had right to keep his code secret, so they somehow violated some trade secrets, if they really performed a reverse engineering.

The second opinion I'm having is there's no proof that the secret violation was followed by a cloning of the original product.

Guilty of reverse engineriing, innocent of cloning.

Well, just opinions.

You won't get consensus on any of these issues I'm afraid.

Here is the problem that I see in this sort of thing:
We have partial information, furnished by secondary sources.
From this information we seem to want do decide whether or not people are reprehensible criminals.
Since we don't have the full body of facts, since we are not experts in software law, since we do not have legal powers to collect more information or legal powers to decide upon the meaning of the facts...
I think that making decisions about the character of others and pronouncing them in public is every bit as questionable as the activities discussed.

Were we somehow entitled to the information and were we somehow empowered to make decisions as to the outcomes and were we to be in full possession of the facts then it would be peachy-creamy to do so and probably a protection for the forum.

But lacking these things, let's not pretent we can make sensible decisions based on a handful of hearsay and our own jaundiced opinions.

Not that we can't form our own feelings about things (and I imagine that most persons, including myself, do form these opinions). But I don't think we should state them here as though they were facts, since the reputation of others is in the balance. We should afford them the same courtesy we would want afforded to us if our character were to be smudged.

IMO-YMMV

All above seems conceptually right, as nobody has the direct view of what really happened. The point is: can we have opinions? Can we discuss those opinions here (or elsewhere)?

I don't think at anybody as a criminal. Proof of "crime" is missing. We can only think about moral about fact that we guess could be happened (or not happened). And it's difficult to consider a crime if Vas is keeping the proof hidden: that makes me think that there's no crime because code could be very very very different. There could only be the possibly unethical fact of the reverse engineering. You said it was "factual" in a post before...

Computer Chess is a competition apparatus as Formula One, Basket or Football. The difference is it hasn't a federation and some authority which can examine facts and decide. All other sports do have, so they never have to go to the court.

When an unproven wrongdoing is discussed as though it were proven I would categorize it as being in the company with slander, libel and defamation of charcter.