Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:13:55 12/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1997 at 05:48:21, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>I am astounded at all the attacks. I guess a lot of >>people like to pull down anyone they see as in the public eye. > >I am not astounded at all the attacks you got. >I think the people waited for a gap where they can attack you. I agree, and furthermore, I think that Ed's "deep hurt" wasn't so much due to your reporting of the fact as it was in how you presented it. As I said in private e-mail, I'm not on the side of those throwing stones here, but I must say that perhaps 15 exclamation marks as opposed to 20 would have created a better impression. Impression? Yes, because I think that that's what a lot of it is a about. Reading something like: "Attention! For those who have downloaded Rebel Decade 2.0, it might interest you to know that a bug in it allows one to activate many of the disactivated functions through a curious workaround..." isn't quite the same thing as reading: "Rebel 9 for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am of course exaggerating, and reporting the bug (or anything for tht matter) needn't be quite so dispassionate, but as you can see, one's impression of two different reports of the same information is quite different. I think Ed just didn't like your reporting so loudly and enthusiastically on how he screwed up, and that's probably why he's so pissed. He can't possibly still believe at this point and time, that you were the first to deliver this information. >Why ? Hm. Because some people don't like you. >Whatever. Normally a "journalist" (and who knows who of us a journalist >is ? ) >should take TIME for his job. >Whenever somebody tries to force you to REPORT fast and shallow, just >because of a deadline, don't do it. >Take your time. If you got a new software don't write an article unless >you have outplayed at least 20 games in 40/120 against ALL possible >computer-opponents, don't measure it's strength unless you have tested >it through all possible test-suites and have found out at least 2 or 3 >OWN points yourself. >Make an interview with the programmer. Show him the article before you >release it and make sure it is printed in exactly the same way you wrote >it. >Don't accept censoring, cutting or the publishers wish to make some >things more impressive and others (maybe critics) less heavy ! >Be honest and and give your best. >Nobody forces you to write garbage. I couldn't agree more, BUT deadline reporting is unfortunately a hard reality and I don't think the option is to simply go hungry. Of course, plenty of time for deliberation, testing, and research are what are ideally sought out, but short of writing it on an amateur basis (i.e. only submitting the article when you're damn well pleased and ready, and not a minute before!), it isn't going to happen. Naturally, that is why companies send their beta software to reviewers (not just for beta testing) so that more time can be allotted for proper evaluation, but when that isn't the case, just do the best you can. I'll give you an example (though not related to computer chess): theatrical reviews are submitted overnight, whether they are a new play opening that night, or a new performance of a known work. In the second case, the reviewer's work is a lot easier of course, but what about that new play that possibly can't be simply judged (even by a very knowledgeable reviewer) without some time to deliberate? That happened with Beckett's Waiting for Godot you know. The play was trashed by the critics, who could make no sense of it, and even Jean Anouilh, a great playwright, and friend of Beckett's, left the performance saying that he didn't understand a thing. A few days later, he proclaimed that after thinking it over more, he had come to the conclusion that he had witnessed a revolutionary work. Time may be ideal, but it isn't always a luxury we have. I remember when I wrote an article >about the Super-Forte C a few years ago. I first had an impression that >this program was weaker than Super-Forte B. >But suddenly, after I had put out the EPROMS off the machine, I thought >again - got a suspicion WHAT Kittinger could have been done and put the >EPROMS again back into the machine and tested some suspicious positions. >AND BANG ! >He had done exactly what I first oversaw. >And I rewrote the whole article and came to the conclusion that >Super-Forte C plays definetely stronger than Super-Forte B, although B >was a better tactician. > >Writing articles takes time. Don't do it only at a week-end with 2 or 5 >blitz-games. Thats nothing. > >And be careful with fast shots. > >A programmer needs months to program a new version. Take the same care >when testing the product. > >Best wishes... > > >> >> >>On December 21, 1997 at 23:07:03, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Hi all concerned: >>>Now that seems KK has received a severe mauling from many, including me, >>>it is time to put things in order. No Don, is not the "great journalist" >>>that is writting now, just a poor guy that feel himself ashamed and try >>>to fix a couple of things. So let me say this: the first thing to put in >>>order is to recall how many times we have done a big shit in this field, >>>not to mention in others a lot more important that "chess computers". >>>Heaven Father, I confess: not many time ago I wrote too early and >>>without enough information an article about Hiarcs 6 that was completely >>>wrong. And then, recently, I wrote another about MCP7 where, even If my >>>target was mostly the DOS platform, in some degree I hurted also Marty. >>>Should I recall more total or partial mistakes from my part of from >>>another people, including some of you out there? May I recall the harsh >>>expressions that have been said here because some people did not give to >>>themselves a bit more of time to ponder? >>>I know that saying all this I am showing a great side to "friendly" >>>fire. "First you shoot and then you pray for the victims", some can say. >>>Or they can say or just think "stupid". Well, I am one of them many >>>times. Most of the time, specially here. Yes, maybe something happens to >>>all us just coming here, to this site; then we forget our real lives as >>>pros or just human beings and we become children trying to do noise or >>>write something in the board to claim some attention. We want to be >>>here, to be part of this and then ocassionally we write a little bit in >>>a hurry. One day is KK, another day it's me, another day is anyone. The >>>first stone cannot be throwed by nobody. Shouldn't. >>>Even more, beyond the mistakes there is something very sad in all this, >>>you see, grown-ups behaving like children at least part of the time. >>>Maybe it happens that in front of a screen we forget that at the other >>>side there is a real human being. And it's so easy for educated people >>>to find poisonous words, sarcastics expressions, witty comments! So, >>>thinking in all that, thinking how many times I have enjoyed KK >>>articles, thinking in the support any one can get from him, anytime, for >>>FREE, thinking that he is like me, a guy that simply satisfy some part >>>of his ego doing all this here, I confess that I feel somewhat ashamed >>>that I was part of the bunch. If KK is reading this, I ask from him his >>>pardon: he -nobody- deserve so much attacks, reasonings, critics, >>>sarcasm and the rest just because he played too hard the role of a >>>journalist. That is nothing: many of us have performed too hard the role >>>of the guys with a rope, crying in excitment because a poor fellow >>>would be hanged. At the end all of us perform ridiculous or childish >>>roles here, except perhaps the people that gets some money from this. >>>They are real and sometimes I imagine how they surely laugh. Yes, Ed is >>>also real, he win or lose money because of what is said, as Marty or >>>Chris. OK, so KK screw it a little bit. Ok, not the big deal after all. >>>And now, free of all this, you can say what you want. Chris, you are >>>here the master of irony; I put my hopes in your comments. Don, push the >>>trigger. I don't care. Even If I had some reason in my comments from a >>>pure rational point of view, they were lacking of real and deep >>>understanding and a sane -or insane you could say, my masochist side, >>>etc- part of me want to be punished. It has been sad to realize that a >>>club of supposed friends begun to be a slaughterhouse as soon as >>>somebody fall. And more sad to realize how easily I have been pushed by >>>myself to do the same. >>>Good night all and good bye. >>>Fernando
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.