Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:07:55 10/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 1999 at 15:43:26, Heiko Mikala wrote: >Talking about mathematical foundation, constraints, generalization and so on, I >think there is an important point we should talk about. > >Just before reading your post, I read a post by Bob Hyatt in which he replied to >Ed Schröder, that if commercial programmers feared the public in a group like >CCC, they should and could avoid it and should instead publish their ideas in >(scientific) journals. I read that and thought, yes, Bob has a good point here. > >Then I read your post, found it very true too, but the above paragraph reminded >me on something I had thought about before. > >I guess a very important reason for commercial programmers not to publish their >ideas in print may be, that it is normally common to not only present your ideas >and give some experimental results, but also to give mathematical proof for your >ideas. Now, I'm very sure, that most of the commercial chess programmers are not >scientists. They may not even have visited a university. It is not at all necessary to give mathematical "proof" or even "justification" for ideas. It's nice to have, but "hey, this works" is the most important thing. If it sticks around long enough, someone else will usually get around to formally show why it works. I think the main reason they don't publish is a lack of incentive. Placing a "publisher of 7 scientific papers on computer chess!" sticker on each box doesn't sound like it will generate thousands of sales. Of course, one never knows until they try. :-) Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.