Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:30:37 07/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2002 at 13:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 25, 2002 at 12:34:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 25, 2002 at 11:24:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 2002 at 23:13:54, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On July 24, 2002 at 14:09:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>For all of you who want to study the mentioned article, here is the URL >>>>> >>>>>http://f50.parsimony.net/forum200318/messages/1063.htm >>>> >>>>Rolf didn't write this. That had to have been written by someone inside the >>>>founder's group, and anyone who has been paying attention knows the style of the >>>>author. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>I agree. I am _certain_ about who wrote it. Although it could have been >>>in cooperation with Rolf. Since the obvious author and Rolf sort of >>>"reconnected" later in r.g.c.c... >>> >>>:) >> >>Bob, >>is this now the new style in CCC? You as a moderator you speculate or others >>insinuate, that I wrote such an article? > >Why don't you re-read what I wrote. I _specifically_ said that I knew who >wrote it, although it was possible they collaborated with you in doing so." > >If I know who it was, and I suspect he could have collaborated with you to do >so, then how could you have been the author? You collaborated with yourself? Bob, please try to control your tendency to bash me and my language as a foreigner. This is regarded as most impolite. Second remark: would you please be so kind to re-read what I wrote? I _specifically_ said "You as a moderator you speculate". And then I began to talk about others. Does it mean - in American English - that automatically the two activities were connected? With speculating I meant exactly your speculation about my possible co-authorship or assistance of some sort. Is it a good role-model for a moderator to toss such wild speculations against other people? And your only evidence is the observation that some "ROlf sort of" did something on rgcc? Third remark: can't you see that this is by far not computerchess? >Try again... Forth remark: please do not seduce me to do something forbidden. ;) > >> >>Show me one single part of data in that article that could have been made or >>even influenced or my idea! > >Oh, the part about Ed. Etc... Fifth remark: How could I know something about Ed and his business? You are completely misleaden, also, when I have made peace with Ed since long. Would I write against a brother? Does it make sense to you? About etc I have no other news actually. So in sum, could you please come back to the standards of the charta for CCC and talk about CC and the different meta problems we talked about? > >> >>Most of these details, what who did for the business, what he did not, what who >>did when and after what "band-waggoning" (quote from the article) I did _not_ >>know! And could not know - because I was not a member of the specific groups. > >I don't disagree. > >> >>So I ask you if this is honest if you tear me into such a topic. > >I didn't tear you into anything. However, you and the "author" did do a lot >of collaboration/back-patting/attaboying over in r.g.c.c a while back. Recall >that??? No, I do not. Listen, I am absolutely independant, I'm not working for or with someone. "attaboying"? You mean the terrorist Atta? Look, some strange German members of CC have just "found" out that I were a dangerous mole and a "steered underground assassinate" (Pordzik) for ChessBase or CSS, the journal. I'm only happy that nobody here called me Bin Laden or Mephisto yet. Or Son of Sam, or how was the name of the motion picture? Thanks to you and all my other friends here in CCC. > > >> >>You could do a way better job if you finally presented the data from Crafty in >>the axb5 position of DB2 in 1997. Did you read the results from HIARCS 8? No >>narrowing after 30 hours. > >So? "no computer can" doesn't mean _every_ computer must before the statement >can be proven. Only one is enough. We already have fritz. And with Crafty >being about .08 apart on the two moves, that is close enough so that if it >played either I wouldn't immediately think that someone had helped it... I see. I'm a bit confused because usually you present the output of your Crafty. Something doesn't fit here. What if Crafty would seperate the two moves in deeper modes. Could you give me the reference where you got fritz? Today we must check very carefully, you know. We accepted results without gamescores, but sometimes we must make some controls unexpectedly. > > > >> >>In sum - could you come back on-topic and leave speculations and ad-hominem >>insults to others as a moderator? You cn try what you want - I would never >>violate the charta of this forum, so it's senseless to provoke me. > > >I'm not provoking _anybody_. But then I am not engaged in the things you like >to do either. You _try_ to provoke so you can claim "foul". You try to mislead and twist things. Insulting mode again? Please! This is very wrong. Or are you so unhappy about the HIARCS 8 results for the axb5 position that you must spread ad hominems? Show me where I wrote false ideas, comments, conclusions, questions and statements, but do not insult here. > >As elvis said, it is all in your history... Until yesterday I had no problem with Elvis Pordzik. Suddenly he had this crazy idea with the "mole", you could read "steered underground assassinator". Are you really taking him for serious? In hours or days he will take back the nonsense. And then? You know what a famous programmer told me long ago in 1996? "The whole computerchess business is full of paranoia." Until now I couldn't find the reason why. I think this is not so bad in other sports. Like in CC they all must have secrets but then people change from one team to the other and have new secrets. I have a really serious question for you. Could it be that the reason for the special situation in CC is the fact that it's simply not possible, as you told me more than once, to control the output and to prevent any form of cheating? For you in the 60s this was simply a knowledge with no consequences. But today? Have you any idea how we could establish a new relaxed spirit of fun and competition with a minimum of control techniques, say coming from a commission of some experts who visit big events? Or is even this all in vain? Could you give us your view on such questions with a look-back on historical events? Rolf Tueschen
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.