|
The ELO system, which most chess federations use today, ranks players by the results of their games. Although simple and efficient, it overlooks relevant criteria such as the quality of the moves players actually make. To overcome these limitations, Reseachers have now developed a new system. Oh great. Now the AIs have started trash-talking.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: AIs have started trash-talking
Finally something useful!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Is this approach any more valid than the numerous existing comparison systems?
I don't see how you can really factor in advances in chess theory let alone the advantages that modern players have from working with AIs and databases.
Is there any point doing so anyway? Depending on your age, you'll have your hero, whether it be Carlsen, Kasparov, Fischer or whoever. Trying to compare chess players across eras makes no more sense than arguing over whether Stanley Matthews was a better footballer than Lionel Messi when in many ways, they were competing in an entirely different sport.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
So, a player who makes awesome moves, but always loses, could be ranked higher than a player who appears clueless, but wins?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: ranks players by the results of their games
I wasn't aware that there is any other options. After all it is a game and it is all about winning...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The FCC will begin a process to repeal the agency's 2015 regulations in May. Are they switching to Chaotic?
I'll let you pick either Good or Evil.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a problem.
The world will just end up with an "american internet" and an "everyone else internet".
We've been living with that with the English language for so long that we'll just ignore the "american internet" like we do "american English".
Not a biggie, at all.
.. Unless you live in the US -- then you're ****ed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Errr... the rules they look to change only began in 2015.
Can you remind me of the horrible mess that was the internet before 2015? I don't recall.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, because, before then, politicians hadn't got* involved in the "who owns the interwebs?" question.
It was ours, as in "the people's". They added rules so that they could later change them to "own" it.
* Aktcherley, this should be "gotten", because it's only american politicians who say they own the interwebs.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually its the big corporate telecoms who "own" the "interwebs" since they're the ones who built, continue to build, and maintain them.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, but they're rightly content to own (and rightly make a fortune from) the infrastructure.
I'm talking of the more ephemeral concept, not the wires and servers.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the basis of net neutrality that ISP's and telecom giants can't provide faster service to those willing to pay (ie. Netflix, Amazon, Alibaba, etc...)? That all data needs to be treated equally?
That seems more infrastructure and less ephemeral to me.
While I can see both sides of the issue I wonder if our ever increasing nanny states won't take it to the next level where they make the same rules for individuals. Every home can and must get the same connection speed regardless of the occupants willingness / ability to pay. Every company can and must get the same connection speed...
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
What was happening before was that when Netflix came out, some providers were slowing down Netflix traffic, so even if you were paying for a certain connection speed, your Netflix connections were being slowed down.
|
|
|
|
|
I still prefer a consumer based solution (protests, boycotts, etc...) rather than a government regulation solution.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I still prefer a consumer based solution (protests, boycotts, etc...) rather than a government regulation solution.
Unfortunately, this strategy reminds me of Allan Sherman - The Let's All Call Up A.T. & T And Protest To The President March - YouTube[^]
Just as, back then, threatening to change phone companies was empty (What other phone company?!); now, with most people contractually bound to their ISP, and having few options, there's little leverage to bear on the providers.
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
The power of modern programming languages is that they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable. Cogito ergo code
Or rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code. (I miss Grade 8)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Or rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code.
Sadly, there isn't a definitive English word for this, so we just use the Latin: elephantare.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
He was asking about Latin, not English.
|
|
|
|
|
A bit early to be drunk, don't you think?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you asking for my approval, get pissed at miday if you like!
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable.
IMO, not really.
The BFS example that the author cited is no more or less than the Python code -- if you know the meaning of the symbols, it's easy to understand. Just because those symbols are mostly expressed in English words doesn't make it more readable. queue.popleft is still meaningless to someone that doesn't know what a queue is, and frankly, I have to guess at what "popleft" means with regards to a queue, and I've been using Python for a while now (but am no expert at it.) As it is, I would expect a popright() as well for symmetry, but I much more prefer the word "dequeue," which is more obvious to me given my background with programming languages (and would be the term I would use if I was implementing a queue.) But that's me.
Marc
Latest Article - Merkle Trees
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
modified 26-Apr-17 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I have to guess at what "popleft" means with regards to a queue
Why should a queue (deque) be conceptualized as right-to-left or left-to-right?
Why not top-to-bottom (like a disposable cup dispenser on the side of the water cooler...)?
Defining it as "in left; out right" may require a mental translation from the problem space to the code space. The "impedance mismatch" between the spaces is larger than necessary, especially because the operations are not named symmetrically, as Marc noted.
Yes, the programmer could encapsulate it with naming that matches the problem space, but that adds complexity to the solution. Just naming the input and output as such ought to be sufficient (IMHO). If there are operations that bend those definitions, so be it.
(I don't see the reason for the deque class to exist. It appears to be a doubly-linked list with some LIFO queue concepts wrapped around it with the left-to-right convention.)
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable
Luckily, most programmers know how to undo all that! 
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: modern programming languages is that they are expressive, readable, concise, precise, and executable
Old programming languages are just as readable too, so I have the impression Scientific American are talking crap. SO, whats in the link...
"C, the burden was on programmers to translate high-level concepts into code. With modern programming languages—I’ll use Python as an example—we use functions, objects, modules, and libraries to extend the language"
We also use functions, objects, modules, and libraries in C too, so yeah, he is talking crap.
Kent Sharkey wrote: Cogito ergo codeOr rather, whatever is the present-tense, first-person indicative version of to code. (I miss Grade 8)
'Cogito ergo codo' i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they'll come up with an article about "Thinking as a way of Programming" - and this way they might get it right.
Or am I asking too much by using the "T" word ?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
