michiguel wrote: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.
*IF* you use AI. If you use natural intelligence (i.e. a human brain) to find good lines, your not doing computer science. You are just using a computer to study chess opening theory. Still, you are doing computer chess.
Dann Corbit wrote:A simple search of this newsgroup will show that you are wrong.
However, there are some people who are simply unconvinceable, regardless of whatever facts are present.
You did not present any facts. You only give concise answers worthless in any serious discussion.
The fact is that you are pro Vas biased. The fact is that the ban on Ippo in your moderation term was mostly your call. You were the one convincing other moderators and enforcing the rules. There are proofs of that in moderators forum.
Of course, it's easy to pretend, deny or hide your real attitude, your are certainly smart enough for that, but to anyone that is actually following this forum long enough this is crystal clear.
How would you know what's in the moderators' hidden subforum?
Actually I see you've already been asked. I think most people could pretty accurately guess how though.
Last edited by Graham Banks on Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
michiguel wrote: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.
Wow, nice to see that some concepts have "sunk in". Very good.
Computer Chess is AI.
Not all of it. There are things in CC that are not AI. Using a tool not necessarily mean you are doing science with it.
AI is computer science.
Yes
An auto mechanic can use an AI/expert system to diagnose a car problem, but he is not a computer science, he is just applying a computer science application to do his normal job. He is not contributing or participating in computer science in any way.
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.
I don't know where you get that kind of opinion, but go pick up _any_ AI book and check to see which field it claims to be a part of. It is _not_ engineering. it is _not_ mathematical science. It is computer science. As far as "computer chess not caring about the science" that is only true for the commercial programmers. It is not true in general.
I've been teaching computer science for 40 years now. And I have taught AI courses many times. _In_ the computer science department. Do a little homework with google to see where you find AI courses offered (which department) rather than spouting such incredible disinformation.
Computers certainly make the investigation and application of AI practical. However, AI is a science all unto itself and does not strictly require a computer in order to formulate an algorithm by which it might be achieved. Then all is needed is a software engineer to translate the algorithm into a program. Where is the computer science in this.
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
bob wrote:His contribution to computer chess has been <nil>. You can make a case for a contribution to chess in general, but not to computer chess.
I think that's a pretty sad statement to make about a fellow chess engine author.
Personally I believe that every programmer who has written a legitimate engine for others to use, enjoy and gain benefit from has made a worthwhile contribution to our hobby (which happens to be computer chess).
Computer chess the science is about developing a chess engine. Not about using a chess engine. Nobody is talking about hobbies. Nobody is talking about chess in general. I explicitly said "computer chess" which is a science, under artificial intelligence, under computer science. And just writing a program others can play games against is not contributing to computer chess. It does contribute to chess since any new and strong opponent adds to chess. But not to the science of computer chess.
Hi ,
You are right Mr. Professor !
Here are scientists ( true chess engine authors ) , hobbyists (lovers of chess and computer chess) and some true chess professionals .
Some hobbyists think -due to their unbelievable prides- they were the victims of some genetic mutations . They judge source-codes like Dow Jones Industrial Indexes. I'm sure they know how to paint an Orthodox church without even to see one .
Forget they Mr. Professor !
Don wrote:... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.
What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.
It's no wonder that none of the commercial engine authors seem to post here any more. A crying shame actually.
It must be a stab right in your heart Graham, what has the world come to?
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
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.
I don't know where you get that kind of opinion, but go pick up _any_ AI book and check to see which field it claims to be a part of. It is _not_ engineering. it is _not_ mathematical science. It is computer science. As far as "computer chess not caring about the science" that is only true for the commercial programmers. It is not true in general.
I've been teaching computer science for 40 years now. And I have taught AI courses many times. _In_ the computer science department. Do a little homework with google to see where you find AI courses offered (which department) rather than spouting such incredible disinformation.
Computers certainly make the investigation and application of AI practical. However, AI is a science all unto itself and does not strictly require a computer in order to formulate an algorithm by which it might be achieved. Then all is needed is a software engineer to translate the algorithm into a program. Where is the computer science in this.
It is time to get off this silly incorrect path: Wiki has a good definition:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it.
Pretty well sums it up. Do you have any idea what a "software engineer: does? Hint: He doesn't do "artificial intelligence" research.
michiguel wrote: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.
Wow, nice to see that some concepts have "sunk in". Very good.
Computer Chess is AI.
Not all of it. There are things in CC that are not AI. Using a tool not necessarily mean you are doing science with it.
That is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is about "contributions to the field of computer science / artificial intelligence." That is not talking about _using_ the programs to do something, such as opening book development, which I agree is an interesting thing. But _that_ is not computer science. That is chess. AI/comp sci is about developing the algorithms that allow a computer to play the game of chess. Hence the "artificial" part of "artificial intelligence" trying to make the computer "simulate" intelligence. Assuming we still believe that chess is an intelligent activity seeing as how a brute-force approach busts it wide open.
AI is computer science.
Yes
An auto mechanic can use an AI/expert system to diagnose a car problem, but he is not a computer science, he is just applying a computer science application to do his normal job. He is not contributing or participating in computer science in any way.
