Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 02:33:28 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 03:13:41, Thorsten Czub wrote: >i have not seen ignorance in what the people posted. they tried to keep >this forum informed about what they found out. >where is the ignorance ?? I've already explained several times how I believe information should be provided and in what manner, eg. games, testsuits and testpositions with the purpose of exploring strengths and weaknesses. Well analysed games is another possibility for indepth exploration. Nothing new about that IMO. Most of the testers posting here did quite okay, but some only contributed with meaningless babble. The threads are there to be read. Quoting them again is wasting my time and yours. >IMO the ignorance came from you, jumping on the people , claiming >all kind of allgations, without having that thing. >as a scientist i would have expected you to wait for the program, to >test it yourself and then to critisize the data, but not the people. If you had actually read the things I've written then it would be obvious that I don't doubt the strength of the program, nor the validity of the data posted. However, the amount of peculiar and incorrect conclusions - mainly put forth by you - is quite staggering. Your approach to chess programs reminds me of a child looking at packages under the tree at Christmas, trying desperately to guess what's beneath the glittery surface. Unfortunately, you don't want to unwrap the presents, because it'll just prove you wrong. But a child doesn't mind being wrong as long as it's a nice gift. The other thing that struck me was the reason behind the 'new paradigm' event. The psychological explanation for the comparison must be that you feel guilty about abandoning CS Tal for Tiger and desperately wants to ease your conscience by inventing a nonexistant relationship. I have no problem accepting that there have been some kind of inspiration, but it isn't sufficient foundation for the exclusive "club" you've started. Gambit Tiger, CS Tal and Gandalf are by no means unique. Very interesting? Yes. Unique? No. >it seems you have no clue about scientific-methods. Unfortunately for you, I actually do. The incomplete dataset supports a hypothesis about strength increase worthy of further empirical investigation, but not esoteric conclusions like 'paradigm' and 'planning'. >you only use them to camouflage your main-reasons behind posting. >and this was outed perfectly during the process of critisizing these people. Yes, I'm without a doubt the embodiment of evilness ;o). >thank you mogens. You're welcome. Mogens.
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.