BB+ on the matter

[Dann Corbit]

I agree, which is why I used the expression 'Methods' rather than 'Code'

[Dann Corbit]

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.

I would hesitate to put it so strongly in Dann's case, because we often think we are being even handed, even if objectively we are not. I don't know if Dann cast doubt on Vas for giving no evidence (I haven't looked and I don't remember). But he might remember it that way, even if it didn't happen that way, or his current views might overshadow former views he has forgotten that he held.

IMHO, YMMV.

I will not cast doubts on a person because they did not prove their innocence. The burden of proof is upon the accusers.

Personally, as I have stated many times, I do not know whether or not Vas has done something wrong. I also do not know whether or not the Ippo/Robbo/Ivan camp has done something wrong. I have also stated this opinion many times.

As far as moral infraction, that is another matter. And while I have clear opinions on this I do not post them here.

I think that all parties might be surprised at how I feel about this.

Precedent:
(John 19:8-11) 8 When, therefore, Pilate heard this saying, he became more fearful; 9 and he entered into the governor’s palace again and said to Jesus: “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Hence Pilate said to him: “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know I have authority to release you and I have authority to impale you?” 11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority at all against me unless it had been granted to you from above. This is why the man that handed me over to you has greater sin.”

[Milos]

how do you know what posts are in the moderators forum?

I will certainly not disclose the source.

[Steve B]

how do you know what posts are in the moderators forum?

I will certainly not disclose the source.

i am going to notify the TCADMIN regarding this
it will be his decision to pursue this or not
Steve

[Milos]

i will going to notify the TCADMIN regarding this
it will be his decision to persue this or not

Lol, you sound like State Department. However, I'm not wikileaks (yet) so don't be so afraid .

[Sean Evans]

how do you know what posts are in the moderators forum?

I will certainly not disclose the source.

i am going to notify the TCADMIN regarding this
it will be his decision to pursue this or not
Steve

Steve take your bs to PM, no one is interested in your goose-chase!

[Steve B]

how do you know what posts are in the moderators forum?

I will certainly not disclose the source.

i am going to notify the TCADMIN regarding this
it will be his decision to pursue this or not
Steve

Steve take your bs to PM, no one is interested in your goose-chase!

you need to control yourself Sean
we have been through outbursts like this of yours before
Steve

[bob]

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. AI is computer science. 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.

[bob]

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.

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.

[bob]

I can't find any dictionary that shares your understanding of the word contribution.

It must be because you have your eyes closed.

Wikipedia:
Contribution may refer to:

* Donation
* Sharing
* Payment

Merriam-Webster:

Synonyms: alms, benefaction, beneficence, charity, donation, philanthropy

Contribution does not solely refer to giving freely, which is what you're inferring.

Scientists make a contribution to society's knowledge with their discoveries, whether they are paid for conducting their research or not.

The key is providing something that makes the discipline better as a whole, benefiting all that are working in the area. Whether you are paid to publish a book or you publish something only for free does not matter. It is the dissemination of information that defines one's "contribution" to computer chess.

Chess grandmasters make a contribution to chess, whether they are paid or unpaid.

Some think that church ministers make a contribution to society. Are they all unpaid too?

Regardless, this is a debate that should probably happen elsewhere.