Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 06:28:14 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 09:17:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 08:28:43, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On February 15, 2003 at 07:13:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2003 at 03:18:31, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>Very off topic in the meantime, so I will give my last message. You are funny. I >>>>>like your messages but you have a general habit to teach me. >>> >>> >>>Just because you are so nice here a little test. I write what I would also write >>>to a scientist, but you [in the role of the author of the quoted message!] can't >>>be one, because of the many mistakes. Of course you could be someone else with a >>>specific agenda. Then you will take offense although your role game is _your_ >>>game without that I had a way to understand it. So, I prefer to take "you" >>>naively as a layman. Always being aware that sort of expert could well be >>>behind. Here is what I would write to a very talented kid. Note if it would be a >>>scientist, "Jonas" would not have made so many mistakes. Here we go. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Just suggestions Rolf, not orders. >>> >>> >>>Funny again, you teach me. But suggestions of that level are bit naive and if >>>the intention of ordering wouldn't exist behind you _then_ would have renounced >>>to give it at all. >>> >>> >>> >>>>I am not trying to teach you anything, teaching you would imply that i am right >>>>in what i say, but i am not sure that i am, i have pointed this out before. >>> >>> >>>Yes, you have many points. One was that I should adopt a better self-reflection >>>about my intentions and the possibly best methods to get people into attention >>>mode. I told you that I had no direct interests for such an optimalization mode. >>>Instead of doing some research on that information you present a false >>>interpretation of teaching. Because teachers do teach and they could well teach >>>even if they were aware that they could teach 1) different stuff and 2) in >>>different ways. BTW the best teacher is completely aware of this. But to my >>>surprise you say that if you are not sure then you can't teach at all, what you >>>in fact always did although you write that this were impossible... >>> >>>Therefore the repeated use of the term "funny". >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>That is normally >>>>>the job of a lay psychologist. [Real psychologists dont do that.] >>>> >>>>See previous comment. >>>> >>>>>All what you say is important for all kind of spin doctors. >>>> >>>>There you go again with the spindoctor, do you honestly think that is what i am >>>>doing? >>> >>>Here we have the next misunderstanding. It's pointing to a general weakness. The >>>meaning of my very simple phrase is: I [Rolf] say that what you [Jonas] tell me >>>"something that is important" "for a spin doctor". And here below I continue >>>"I'm not such a spin doctor." If I wanted to know if I had a GM as opponent or a >>>dumb computer then a3 and h3 [DJ sensational moves] would give me the necessary >>>informations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>But I am not such a >>>>>species. I am a totally free "scientist" in such talks. Also, I don't want to >>>>>persuade people. You have no understanding for me. None. This is a pity. Do you >>>>>believe that a guy like Walser looks what people think or expect? Did you never >>>>>reflect such positions? I write the best that I can! And the rest is to others. >>>>>Most debates go about misunderstandings. Or when I had asked questions - since I >>>>>am a lay in CC! But when I talk about statistics or other topics, I have enough >>>>>knowledge. >>>>> >>>>>From 1996 on, from my first contact in rgcc, I always met people who start to >>>>>tell me how I should behave, don't you find that crazy? Is that a CC deficiency? >>>> >>>>Maybe there is something in your behaviour that you might need to look at, given >>>>that general response you just discribed. >>> >>>Nope. It is something else. Guess what? I am not so easily confused. While you >>>seem to talk about something you only know from hear-say. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>I am psychologist but I would never do that. >>>> >>>>I thought you were a scientist :) >>> >>> >>>If I ever needed a proof then this is it. You must go back to START again. But I >>>won't tell you the solution this time. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>Next point. Wider, more. Would you say that I get no reactions? :) >>>> >>>>No, but you would probably have more people wanting to "get" you point/s. >>> >>>Spin doctor problems again. Not mine. Your logic is "Lower your level!" This is >>>another delusion. Because this way they would no longer get my points. I am >>>happy when people admit that they got something of a different view from my >>>messages. That is the signal to me that I'm doing fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>And then! People I have enough who talk with me, but I would seek for real >>>>>experts. And they are perhaps not here. I mean real scientists. Bob is the only >>>>>one I know. >>>> >>>>>Could we now end this very personal debate? It has a disadvantage because I >>>>>don't know you. >>>> >>>>Well i don't know you either, but i am fine with this debate, however if it >>>>makes you uncomfortable to discus on a personal level, then by all means let's >>>>drop it. >>> >>>You underestimate irony. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>BTW just stating the obvious, it is through personal relations you get to know >>>>someone. >>> >>>Yes. If you were a woman then I could perhaps lose my mind. I needed more >>>details. :) >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>Well atleast you have your sense of humor, but this is the part of the >>conversation where you sky rocket into another dimension, hope you will come >>back with your senses too. >> >>I guess i have learned my lesson now, having a conversation with you is >>impossible. >> >>Jonas > >Different to your final insult (read also my article against defamation with >peseudo-psychiatric diagnoses by laymen - in the given link of my Homepage) you >will never read something the like from my side. But when I see clear handicaps >in someone's reasoning and logic then it's not insultive to give a clear-cut >judgement. In short how could you communicate with me when you don't understand >my points? Sure - it's always kind of irony when a not really bright pupil >begins to accuse his teacher. In other words, your vision of someone who has a >bad management for the presentation of his arguments is completely wrong. And by >definition this is leading to unwilling comedy. Perhaps you can now understand >that you never had a conversation with me. What we had is a failed lesson for >you how to behave with politeness and thoughtful arguments. But this is now >really my last message to you. It is beyond my understanding why you wanted to >teach me psychology, correction: what you understand under psychology - that is >as if I called Bob and taught him how to avoid typical errors in the coding with >bitboards. :) > >[Our little exchange is also a good demonstration for the question by B. Eklund >how one could discover if a player is machine or human. I think the answer is >clear in the games of DJ and Kasparov. Bertil jumped up and down about games 5 >and 6. But these games were no games. After 1.e4 e5 you couldn't define either >on which side who is playing. BTW of such a level of logic we have many >arguments in CC.] > >Rolf Tueschen I rest my case... Jonas
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.