I think people are more familiarized with the nonexistent than with .

I propose to alias them up, and maybe use chess-engines as master tag.

Looks exactly like what tag aliasing was invented for. I'd probably even alias computers (I mean, there's no chess-strategy tag, tight ?) – Nikana Reklawyks Dec 29 '12 at 0:44
up vote 5 down vote accepted

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 , , and , and additionally making 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.

I believe 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 – ajax333221 Sep 3 '13 at 3:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .