Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:13:41 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2000 at 03:04:51, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >Graham, > >You go too far. Time to back off. > >Let me serve you a little of your own dish. You are sure to like it. :) > >You can say anything you want about the programmers of chess programs. You can >try to demean their character or psychoanalyze them all you want. You might >even make a point or two that hits close to home because you are a good amateur >psychologist or a good study of people. I didn't intend to demean the character of the programmers. In the future, I will be more careful not to say things that could be interpreted in this way. >Well, la dee da! (this means I ridicule the approach--not you the person, but >the approach you have chosen). However, I am very sorry that you the person >chose this approach. It is wrong and silly at the same time. > >The 'ad hominum' (sp?) argument (attack the human) fails to rebut the logic and >evidence supporting their arguments regarding how strong current programs are, >at tournament time controls (40/2), on a human FIDE rating scale. > >Trying to establish bias (or non-objectivity) on the part of programmers does >not mean that *your* contra opinion about strength of programs is true. It does >not take the real evidence they have drawn upon to support their cases and show I can't rebut the "real evidence" - the limit of what I can do is to express the opinion that the evidence that computers have reached GM strength is stronger than the evidence that they haven't. >with your own logic how that evidence actually supports your case instead of >theirs. Adducing evidence about the programmers opinions does not produce one >whit of evidence that your counter-opinion is more accurate, more logical, or >more supported by evidence laid bare for the world to see and judge. > >Programmers point to actual games and actual game results against strong >competition (examples--Rebel challenge matches, spoken of by Ed Schroder in >below posting; Hyatt pointing to his trials of Crafty versus strong players). >They draw well reasoned and logical conclusions from those actual test results. > >You cannot make programs appear stronger by attacking their programmers' >personalities and demeaning their objectiveness. In fact, this method of >advancing your own opinion only serves to weaken your own case. By grasping at >weak straw after weak straw, attempting to thereby build a solid framework for >your opinion, you reveal the true weakness of your own evidence. It shows you >have no stronger, more solid support to rely on and share with interested >readers. Who in their right mind would produce weak arguments when they had >better arguments in hand? I was only replying to ONE PARTICULAR argument - not the full range of arguments. It's in the nature of the CCC format that not every argument for a complicated discussion will appear in every post. >Apparently this is of no concern to you. Consequently you seem to stretch to >find any way at all, using even the most demeaning of methods (ad hominum >attacks), to support your position. I don't think my post was quite that bad! >Analogy--You cannot make a borderline great horse a great horse in the eyes of >the judging public (if indeed you are trying to be persuasive) by complaining >that the jockey or trainer's opinion of the horse is too modest or too biased. >The horse doesn't run any worse or better because you toy with the human >connections psyche. The horse's ability is evidenced bottom line by actual >runnings, actual trials, against great competition, and analysis thereof. This >is evidence, not all the rubbish about the connections. (better watch myself, >starting to sound Hyatt-like! :) ) > >As another example of your grasping at straws, I posted far below about your >argument drawing upon Selective Search ratings and statements to bolster your >opinion about program strength. I indicated several seemingly serious flaws to >that approach of yours--due to lack of evidence about the Selective Search >figures, how calculated and based on what. I pointed out that Selective Search >admitted there was a likely difference between comp-comp and human-comp ratings, >yet the Selective Search rating is admittedly based on a combination of both >types of play--without ever publishing the basis for their ratings. And you >relied on those ratings without applying a critical eye of your own to test the >evidence you hoped you were providing. > >Once again, you didn't rise to the occasion to logically defend your own use of >a second-hand (at best) conclusion, undocumented, non-interpretable and devoid >of supporting evidence. Instead you avoided discussion of my points on the >merit (lack, actually) of your approach. In fact, you never directly replied to >my post. You didn't acknowledge the merit of my concerns about your approach >nor try to mitigate them by evidence or your own logic. Who is avoiding >competition (here, logical argument), you or a programmer? Agreed. I have not taken the time to search through all my back issues of SS to look for the articles. I suspect that it might be in one of the issues that I've lost - but I won't know until I look. However, it is undoubtedly true that if the SS team have come up with their numbers for the differences in Elo ratings at different time controls between computers and humans as a consequence of studying the wide range of evidence that they would have had access to. For me, it defies credibility that they would have plucked figures out of the air for the sake of having something to print. For this reason, even though I haven't re-read the articles, I feel I should be allowed to present their reprinted findings as evidence. >To me this means you intentionally avoided addressing serious concerns about the >flaws in your arguments--another sign you don't care seriously to defend your >espoused opinion with strong backup and will often say anything, no matter how >devoid of substance it is. You might be overstating your case a little, here. I only tried to demonstrate that there was "reasonable doubt" about the programmers' publicly stated positions about their programs' strength. >You indicated, however, in reply to a replier to my post that you would try to >locate that Selective Service published evidence I asked for, in your back >issues of Selective Search. I have not yet seen the actual evidence to back up >*your* arguments, *your* logic (lack of it, in my opinion). It may be there, I >don't say it isn't (although I strongly believe it isn't there), but you have >not produced it, nor admitted in the interim that you do not actually have it. > >Now here, for the umpteenth time, you are posting about the strength of computer >programs, this time drawing on your finely honed skills of psychobabble. Nice >job! really supports your opinion doesn't it? not to mention your character! > >What gives, my friend? Are you unable to carry on civil discourse with wit, >logic and aplomb? Do you have any evidence you wish to discuss in our CCC No - in fact, if I don't win the argument I'm going to get my revenge by going to the house of everyone who opposed me in this debate, beating them to death with a cricket bat, burning them in an incinerator, then stamping on the resulting ashes until - well - until they've had enough! :-) -g >forum? If so, bring it to the table, please. Publish it here. We all enjoy >discussing such stuff. > >But please don't stoop to attacks on the programmers in the hopes that it makes >your own arguments look better. It really is demeaning of you, in my opinion. > >However, it is a free (although moderated) forum. Say what you want until you >get messages deleted or are banned. > >If you produce good evidence and good logic, I will happily concur with the >merits of your points. If you chose to ignore real evidence and attack >personalities, I will speak up. Your reputation will suffer by continuing. Why >do it? > >P.S. I am not always right. Feel free to reply. But please address my concerns >about your methods and your choices to support your opinions. This is what I am >opposing. Not your right to have an opinion and express it, with or without >logic or evidence to support it. Just your obstinate means of trying to support >it in any manner, no matter how personally derisive and insulting it may be to >others. > >--Steve Boak
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.