Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 02:49:18 09/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 17:36:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 11, 2002 at 09:02:32, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On September 11, 2002 at 07:51:07, Uri Blass wrote: >> > >[...] > >>>Hope for peace >>> >>>Uri >> >>Well, Thorsten achieved something remarkable tuning the Rebel parameters, both >>his versions perform significant better than the default setting. So far I have, >> >>TC-051 : 51-35 59.2% (+55 elo) >>TC-056 : 43-34 55.8% (+30 elo) >> >>Both matches are still in progress but I think the pattern is set. >> >>Well done Thorsten. >> >>Ed > >Without the exact data, the games, this remains an open question, Ed. Only the >games can speak. The scores alone don't mean the same. The questions of the >readers here are justified. > >Let me give an example from science. I think it was the Nobel prize laureate >Monod from France who was involved with a terrible error in his laboratories. >Hewas guilty of not having controlled good enough the work of his team members. >What has happened? Well, the error was odd. His assistants had to count certain >items, their frequency in certain solutions. As it could be proven some >assistants counted the items almost always in wrongly enlarged format. How could >this happen if the field with the items was very bright and therefore to be >examined without difficulties? The answer shows a typical case in science, and >therefore certain caution was invented. I remind you of the typically >double-blind experimental setting of medical tests. That means that not only the >clients know what they are given, but also the experimentor himself doesn't know >what he's administering. Meaning placebo or not, medicament X or Y etc. >Look, if these well educated and experienced scientists must respect a basic >caution, it is very telling when Thorsten is simply believing that he has >anything under control. If it were so easy, and if people could control their >unconscious (!) preferences and intentions, we didn't need methods such as the >double blind. It is simply a fact, that we can't control us, no matter how >honest or educated we are. It is simply a human trait, that we are trying to >support our own wishful thinking. So it's not a big surprise if Thorsten, or >anyone else, gets the results he is working for. We could examine his results if >we had the exact data. And also the complete data. Here Thorsten is taking >refuge in making excuses. Perhaps the most complicated excuse is "his" >creativity vs the mere "beancounting" of the uninspired... Here he becomes to >resemble religious sect members. Simply because even if he is 100% right, we >must have the data, the complete data, otherwise his results mean almost >nothing. Not because people believe that Thorsten cheated or something, but >simply because he himself is no longer able to differentiate objective and >subjective. We know this, because everyone would be in the same difficulty if we >experimented like Thorstenin our own kitchen or lab. Therefore the necessary >control. > >(NB that the naivity of Thorsten is no proof for his unbalanced results. As I >said these processes are working unconsciously. And nobody has control of theses >processes, noprofessor and no Thorsten. I say that because some people will >surely take my report as insultive to Thorsten which is not the case.) > >Of course we all could lean back and say "well, let's wait until Ed will publish >the so-called Thorsten version", but then it will be a disadvantage for you and >not only for Thorsten. Or you must have more data than the rest of us. But then >Thorsten's posts were not ok. > >What comes to mind is this. With exception of the tournament that was on your >webpage, Thorsten's tournaments always had CSTal in the leading ranks although >CSTal was weaker than the truely leading progs. And likewise FRITZ always was in >the middle of the ranking lists. This no surprise. It was a correct mirror of >Thorsten's belief. FRITZ was always the dumb beancounter and CSTal the ingenious >combinatory player. Strange that all others had FRITZ on the top and CSTal down >below. Much stuff to think about I think. > >The next topic could be that _new_ versions of progs can always be tuned >successfully against old progs. Doesn't prove much. Because the other way round >it works the same way. It's a consequence of the weaknesses of today's progs. >Either engine or book, or learning mode. Therefore BTW the justified question of >Chessfun. Thorsten played many first games. Also here Thorsten gives a strange >reply. He says that FRITZ itself is guilty. But that is something a tester >shouldn't say. Doesn't look neutral such expression. > >I think we could find many more arguments, but the given might already convince >you that the _complete_ data is very important. And the knowledge of the control >mechanisms Thorsten had implemented. > >Rolf Tueschen you didn't understand Thorsten. He is a genius which has the right intuitions and can find improvements without such nonsense as control mechanisms ;-) but what is really surprising, it seems, that he _has_ found better settings which his approach. To demand the complete data today is futile, because which Thorstens approach you can not prove nothing. But if Ed's control routines show, that Thorsten _has_ found better settings, I'm sure Ed will present all data, so you can prove all. Isn't this a great division of responsibilities?
This page took 0.01 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.