Author: Roger
Date: 19:42:02 12/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
You say that "when ONE programmer is banned for no reasons, than all other programmers should not participate too." But, of couse, you are making that decision for ALL other programmers. I wonder what would have happened if you'd asked if you could use their engines in a tournament that you wanted to ban from CCC? I guess they all said "Use my engine" because they wanted to support Chris. I think not. ;) You Thorsten, usurped their choice in the matter, for your own agenda. You say you have nothing to prove to people that would piss on you. Again, you are making assumptions about people's opinions... There is always a lot of new blood coming online. People are open to positions that can be defended, and just because a few people piss on you, that doesn't mean that EVERYONE is pissing on you. I've always enjoyed your spirited defense of CSTAL, even when you were just posting a single game, because I understood that you were showing what it was CAPABLE OF, not what it ALWAYS did. There is a difference. Forget Nunn tests. The explosion in the number of Winboard engines will only continue into the future. I think you and Chris could influence a fair number of programmers if (1) Chris would just drop the dogmatic egoism and (2) the both of you operationalize your approach. Life ought to be about more than just pissing off those that piss on you. Roger On December 20, 1999 at 06:43:54, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On December 19, 1999 at 22:16:43, Roger wrote: > >>Your position, Thorsten, IS INVALIDATED BY YOUR OWN EPISTEMOLOGY, for in >>excluding CCC in toto from your tournament, you embraced an EXTREME POSITION >>compatible only with the dichotomous, black versus white, epistemologies you so >>thoroughly eschew. > >no - look for the headline of the post: my decision is constructive, >because it gurantess that the tournament continues. >and it is constructive, cause it is not hurting my friend. >and it is politically correct, because when ONE programmer is banned >for no reasons, than all other programmers should not participate too. > >>That, sir, is called a compromise, and that, by definition, is the middle ground >>between extremes. > >right. but when I am doing it is different, because i don't think in >the dichotomy of black/white as you do. i have many stages in between. >and i know about the false logic of the left brain halve, as spock knows >too in star trek when he says: logic is only the beginning. > >>You say you are no fan of test suites, and that you like to post complete games, >>but that people complain they are exceptions. They do complain. > >>Yet, you miss the FACT that a test suite consists of positions draw from A GREAT >>MANY GAMES, and that the move recommended by CSTAL need not be winning in order >>to be attractive and exciting. Who is going to piss on your posts when you can >>show so many examples of attractive chess? > >look - i KNOW that it is no exception. >i have played hundreds of game with it. >i see no need for me to proof it for others who would nevertheless piss on me. >they are not worth doing it, don't you get it ? > >> I'm sure you could present a hundred >>or more. If you would just sample from all aspects of the game, the overall >>score on the suite would be an index of the attractiveness of a program's play. > >the program speaks for itself. you can buy it in any shop. > >>You say CSTAL does brilliancies all the time. Perhaps so, but it also blunders, >>as all programs do, and someone must separate the wheat from the chaff. You are >>excellently qualified, since you know the program better than anyone. Other >>positions could be added to the suite where CSTAL does not chose the attractive >>move (as good as CSTAL is, it's not PERFECT). That would also require human >>judgment. Since you and Chris are the primary authors of this approach, again, >>you are the best ones to identify such positions. >> >>Roger > >i will not try to convince people who believe the earth is a disc that the >earth is a ball. > >they want to believe it is a disc. so - let them believe in their >hubbards or kohls or honneckers or stalins. >let them buy their products and let them post their nunn-tests. >if they believe its a disc, they have the right to die with this "knowledge". >everyone has the right to make mistakes. and i will not try to convince him >with quantifying something that is quality.
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.