Author: Walter Koroljow
Date: 04:55:21 05/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
Mogens, The accusations I was talking about were the implications of bad behavior, not the discussions of methodology. I will not enumerate them as that would make me an accuser also! It would be useless to start a discussion on "How to Discuss Methodology in a Friendly Way", but I will make two remarks. Many years of experience have taught me that it is very hard to run an experiment, no matter how much planning has been done. There is much wisdom in a remark made to me by a U.S. Navy officer, "We consider a sea-test successful if no one drowns." The second thought is that in spite of these difficulties, there are CCC members who go to substantial trouble and do original work (such as Chessfun). The posts of their results have much higher signal-to-noise ratio than my posts. I value their contributions and would like to encourage them to continue making this a better place! I value their contributions even if I can find some flaws in their methodology. This basic appreciation (I assume others feel it also) has a way of getting lost in discussions, and the focus shifts from the contribution (the major factor) to a -perhaps minor- flaw in methodology. Cheers, Walter
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.