Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:50:04 06/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2004 at 19:43:27, Mike S. wrote: >On June 12, 2004 at 19:02:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 12, 2004 at 18:41:29, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>I wish I would find more serious, competent, constructive critics, to invent >>>them to the CSS message board and have delightful conversation with them. >>>Unfortunately I don't find many such persons. > >I notice a freudian slip. I meant, to *invite* them then, not to invent them >:-)) Maybe my subconscious told me I'll have to invent them myself if I want to >meet more. No no. You wanted to admit that you must invent all day long when you're working as a team member in CSS. Let me be your very personal Dr. Freud for this message. > >>Blabla. You already have them. >> >>1. Hagra > >I wonder if I am compatible to him in conversation. Convronsation :-) Certainly not compatible. Hagra is th science version of Galileo class withstanding the pressure of the Holy Church CSS led by among others M. Scheidl. > >>2. Bob Hyatt several times Wchampion in computerchess > >I guess he wouldn't come (just guessing), although he'd of course be a VIP guest >we should have an online interview hour with, like we had with several other >chess programmers already. But these events are usually organized by other >members of the staff. Could you for one time, just for one minute or such, forget about your little world in CSS? -- You dare to judge about one Bob Hyatt with pondering if he could fit into your online interviews???? He knows more about computerchess in his little fingers than you if you prepare your articles with 1 week of hard work. He simply knows the whole history of computerchess. In Germany perhaps only Fred Friedel has the history knowledge - BUT Fred has no experience for programming!! While Bob was a multiple World Champion. More -- he has created with others what we call today the history of computerchess tournaments. I mean the rules and bla bla. Should I continue? And you think longer than 1 my second IF he could fit into CSS? Here is my answer, why he wont fit into CSS. He's a science man and I doubt that except Hagra you have members who are from science in CSS. You have simply not the level to understand Bob. I am joking! Because of course Bob knows well how to talk to lays. He's the best to do that! You need more PR for Bob? Now if you repeat only one time such a nonsense about Bob in CSS, you get no more response from me. You want to doubt that his "opinion" is correct, that Stellungstests are not able to make Elo ratings for computerchess programs??? > >Recently I could, by chance, invite Martin Bryant of Colossus who came (not much >response unfortunately, but at least a good and long Q/A dialogue). >http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/98897.htm > >>3. Ed Schröder several times Wchampion in computerchess > >Has a defamatory description of the CSS-Forum on the Rebel website, still. Defamatory? Impossible. I dont know that but I am sure that Ed has a correct evaluation about the forum. Dont forget, he knows the histories about your looong practice of censorship. Against almost all critics. What is defamatory in his judgement? Could you at least prove that allegation? Perhaps it's not about "WM-Test"? > >>4. Yours truly as mediator with a whole academic study and a profession as >>Psychologist. With diploma, not kitchen psychology. With a year long study of >>statistics. Enough said? What qualifications do you have Mickey? > >I wish a had these... compared to that, those I really have are not worth >mentioning. But I've indeed worked in the field of (kind of) statistics for >several years, but not scientific statistics, only business reports and the >like, most often Excel based. You have excellent experience then for many abilities you can use for your job in CSS. You certainly are top in the graphic presentation. But you have also a good debate level. You have so many good abilities - but if it comes to attacks=critics against something with CSS you become blinded and react below your own abilities. You go into insulting mode. You invent events that have never happened. You become pretender. I had so many exchanges with you as "Schachfan" that I know how good a conversation is with you. It's a pity. > >As for the rest of the topic, my remark was about the testing condition of >"stable" solving (up to the max. time without switching to other moves in >between), which was introduced with the WM-Test ever since. It seemed to me that >this was unknown here. But actually this is a principle every serious test has, >anyway. The latest stable solving counts. Yes, exactly, but you make still the assumption that Hagra and me could confuse Bob Hyatt so much so that he could be misleaden in the practice of that test here, "WM Test"? > >I'd want a reply by Prof. Hyatt confirming that he takes notice that the WM-Test >respects that principle, and does of course not count solutions which are >"forgotten" later during the testing time. (I would have wanted that he would >have informed himself better, before explaining why "such tests are basically >flawed" when the WM-Test being the main topic in this thread here, isn't one of >such tests...) But his "opinion" is the same! He knows how to do such tests and he does still say, like Uri and Ed, that Stellungstests, in English Position Tests, can NOT substantiate exact (Elo like) ratings. But the whole work of Gurevich&Meiler is only reasonable in its limited design, if they pretend to get a valuable result. They give typical Elo ratings. But you want to imply that nobody NEVER presented such numbers. Nonsense! Of course they did it. > >Let's assume you didn't notice this "detail"... You are now suddenly my lawyer of defense?? I dont know ye if I should accept that offer... At first I must know more details!!!! > >Regards, >Mike Scheidl
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.