Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 02:55:31 06/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 20:18:34, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 18:11:34, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On June 19, 2000 at 08:51:57, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2000 at 08:01:43, Hans Gerber wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2000 at 22:28:55, Pete R. wrote: >>>> >>>>>I went to their site to check out the live Frankfurt games, but couldn't seem to >>>>>get anything actually moving other than the clocks. So I decided to check out >>>>>the playing zone there. Lame! Not only is it web-based as opposed to having a >>>>>real playing client, but banner ads pop up *during* games. What idiot thought >>>>>this up? >>>> >>>>snip >>>> >>>> >>>>It is apparently quite normal to call Kasparov or anyone out of his staff >>>>__idiot__ here in this CCC. >>>> >>>>This is not consistant with the so-called moderation politics. But it reveils >>>>the general attitude of computerchess people towards real chessplayers. More so >>>>if it's coming along under anonymity. >>>> >>>> >>>>Hans Gerber >>> >>>I see his comments as directed towards kasparovchess.com in general. >>>It has nothing to do with Kasparov. We must be allowed to call a company >>>"idiotic" >> >> >>Mr. Pete R. wrote "idiot" not "idiotic". > >Pete R. (in a post below this one) explained my point. I have nothing >to add. Or do you really mean that every criticism that, by only the >most imaginative person, could be seen as directed towards some anonymous >and perhaps only in theory identifyable person at a company, >should be removed by the moderators? > >> >>>when we think it provides inferior sevices. Now, look at you >>>own post: "...the general attitude of computerchess people..." Sweeping >>>generalizations is a bad habit. >> >>I have several examples for that tendency. In that case I build a theory. Of >>course it's a generalization. A theory is always a generalization. Since when >>this is a bad habit? The using of the word "idiot" is ok, but my theory is bad? >> > >I can be a nitpicker as well. You have >expressed your disappointment when "real chessplayers" have not been >shown the proper respect. You are in your full right to do so, >and in some cases I agree with you. > >Your sweeping generalization, in my opinion, is to extend this to the >"computerchess people". Some/many of them might agree with you. >You have just been arguing with a handfull. >Then to say that this generalization (which I just think is sloppyness) is to >"build a theory" is a severe abuse of the meaning of these words. I observe that you see a problem where there should be no problem. Generalisation on the base of several observations that is what is called building a theory. Of course my theory here goes beyond that simple statement that the non-moderating of that article does show a tendency of such and such... But we did not even start to discuss it. And I simply did not even had the time to present it. However for me it is enough for the moment to see that you agree in those "some cases". I can only confirm you that I have much more cases. Also _very_ personal cases. Since I am a chessplayer too. Perhaps the most obvious part of my theory is the fact that we have to deal here with the apparent asymmetry between extraordinarily talented people on the technical programming side and not to forget the side of testing and operating - and the sphere of real chess and its players. To put it into daily language: you can be a very special talent in computerchess without even being able to play a single game in tournament chess. Vice versa the same! A GM must not necessarily understand much of computerchess and its programming. Without arrogance I want to give a weak hint that "my" theory includes all this... Hans Gerber > >Ralf Elvsén > >> >>Hans Gerber >> >> >>> >>>Ralf Elvsén
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.