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).
Rybka is legitimate?
but IvanHoe, etc. not?
please present evidence...
am very interested to review/consider it.
very 'sad' for computer chess 'hobby' if you you don't after such statements, especially as a 'founding' member of CCRL...to which you oft refer
Last edited by kranium on Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don wrote: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.
Albert Silver wrote:The single word is the one you are twisting to mean exclusively what you wish it to, ignoring the overwhelming freight and definition in modern usage that disagrees with you.
That's not correct. The freight is clearly seen in the synonyms (Merriam-Webster): alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy.
Only because one of the definitions of contribution leads to those synonyms.
It gives no other synonyms. That means your idea isn't synonymous with contribution.
Are you kidding? You quoted a half-dozen. I would suggest you use more thorough references. In my thesaurus here (one of my favorite books), I have hundreds. Easily.
Here are another half-dozen (hand-picked, but shows the flexibility you claim does not exist): addendum, additament, participation, supplement, increase, engraftment, add one's share, etc.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Don wrote: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.
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.
Don wrote: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.
Don wrote: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.
wrong...it is a 'superset'...
w/ respect to another set, it is a set such that each of the elements of the other set is also an element of the set!
and actually 'overlays' the previous set...
precisely, it is a 'superset' of computer science with underlying 'knowledge flaps' that intersect with 'chess engine hobby'...
as Graham so succinctly points out..
Don wrote: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.
wrong...it is a 'superset'...
w/ respect to another set, it is a set such that each of the elements of the other set is also an element of the set!
and actually 'overlays' the previous set...
precisely, it is a 'superset' of computer science with underlying 'knowledge flaps' that intersect with 'chess engine hobby'...
as Graham so succinctly points out..
CC and CS are two sets that intersect, and neither is a subset or superset of the other.
michiguel wrote: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?
