I have an anecdotal evidence related to this. In the secondary grammar school, I participated in the so-called math olympics, which consisted of three levels, school level, district level, and then country level. It was not related to "carrier choice", and both boys and girls participated in the school level . Once I managed to advance to the country level (the winners there go to the International olympics), and from around 100 participants, I hardly remember there was any girl... probably a few, but certainly less than 5%. And there wasn't any artificial discrimination, nobody cared if you are boy or girl.
What about moves validity, and detection of mate/stalemate? Would it be ok that the program assumes, that the opponent is playing legal moves only? Also, should it be required to detect mate and stalemate, and stop playing at that point?
Also, there is a 50-moves rule and 3rd position repetition rule, but I believe this doesn't need to be implemented, since you are not required to invoke the rule.
Yes, totally agree. I think we could be lenient on moves validity - let's accept that the program will work correctly only if the opponent plays legal moves, and it also doesn't need to castle. Maybe it is also not necessary that it will detect mate or stalemate, we can assume that some external arbiter will end the game. But what I think a chess program absolutely needs to implement to be called a chess program is:
- should be able to play with both white and black
- support all normal moves obviously
- must allow opponent to play any legal move (castling, en passant, promote pawn to any figure)
> I'm also not sold on the idea that the web should be free.
I see it exactly the opposite way. The web IS free, it works that way (unless someone erect a paywall, which I find perfectly acceptable), and no entity is entitled that the web should "provide" it a profitable business avenue. If someone successfully exploited the web and created a business relying on ads, that's fine, but he don't have an implicit right for that. Internet users are not obliged to display data he provides through http the way the creator expects.
As in, should most web content be free if more and more people are declining to have display advertising render properly in their browser? It can't be at scale and consistently without a revenue engine of some kind.
>If someone successfully exploited the web and created a business relying on ads, that's fine, but he don't have an implicit right for that. Internet users are not obliged to display data he provides through http the way the creator expects.
No, they're not. As this trend continues, the assumption that underwrites a lot of free content will stop being nearly as true. When the assumption stops being accurate, that business model fails, and more free 'content' winds up being ads gussied up as content. This is not exactly what the visionaries of the web had in mind, but them's the breaks.
In print, there are free publications handed out on street corners and in boxes. They tend to have low ad rates because the distribution is unverifiable. On cable, ad rates are still super-high, because the distribution is verifiable, and the cable networks have all the data they need about you on your cable bill + viewership surveys to aggregate for sale to advertisers.
I wouldn't respect it. Because they publish a free content, and are taking advantage of many other Internet services, which provides them with free marketing - search engines, aggregators, social sites, etc. I can download their content and then display any subset I want - that is how WWW works. If they want to prevent me doing that, they should implement a pay-wall.
"Free marketing", doesn't make the creation of the content effortless. If you found an interesting article via Google or Twitter, (ostensibly) "free" marketing channels, does that mean the article magically popped into existence or did the journalist/content creator still have to put in time and effort to create it.
Yes, I am not paying for the content, but the content creator also doesn't pay for the right to present his website publicly. It only pays for the webserver space and bandwidth. (I am following your logic).
World Wide Web works in a way, that I can create a http request, and then do what I want with it, for example I can only take the text and throw away anything else. I paid for the data transport, as you said, and then I don't have any other obligations after downloading those data.
I wouldn't use this extension, and I also don't use ad blocker, but I kind of understand it. People using this extension considers those ad networks as evil, so they want to fight against them.
In my personal opinion, WWW was invented for free spreading of information. The company beyond ad network, or any company for that matter, shouldn't have a guaranteed right, that WWW have to provide a platform for commercially exploit it. Also, those ad network does that by tracing users and selling that information, and that is not ethical to do without visitors content. So I believe such an extension has the right to exist.