I think people are more familiarized with the nonexistent chess-engines than with chess-computers.
I propose to alias them up, and maybe use chess-engines
as master tag.
I think people are more familiarized with the nonexistent chess-engines than with chess-computers.
I propose to alias them up, and maybe use chess-engines
as master tag.
So you don't feel left hanging, I'm posting this as a notice that in a few days I'll default to a combination of ajax's and Nikana's suggestions, synonymizing the tags chess-engines, chess-computers, engines and computers, and additionally making engines the master of these, unless objections to doing so are raised/supported here.
I'm new to this exchange and missed this discussion, but I do have a strong objection to using engines
as the master tag; it is misleading. Some questions are about specific chess-playing engines, or about comparing them. Use the engines
tag for that.
Some questions are about more abstract computational concerns: are there promising AI algorithms? how many moves can we hope to compute in advance? I urge that this is reconsidered so we allow the more generic tag computers
for these questions.
engines
is fine, maybe for those more computer-based questions we can use something like computer-analysis
or computer-evaluation
, I don't know, just throwing an opinion
Sep 3, 2013 at 3:17