Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:49:51 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 07:30:31, Mogens Larsen wrote: >No, but you did post meaningless and unsubstantiated conclusions. And you >continue to do so. don`t read them mogens ! its a free world. >The problem isn't the quality of the data, but the interpretation as I've >mentioned before. anything in live is interpretation. you cannot forbid to interprete any opinion that is different from yours, mogens. > The strength of the program is obvious, but you're making more >than speculative conclusions on the impact and meaning of the speculative >approach undertaken by Gambit Tiger. The data is insignificant if used >incorrectly. ?!? can data be used ?? misused? wow ! i thought data is objective and facts. great these materialists. one day this way, next day that way arround. >The psychological angle seem rather obvious. aha ! good that we have you. we would miss many things here - as it looks. > Especially as it started out when >you claimed that CT was running with the torch lit originally by CW. TC = CT = CST = GT chris is chris. :-))) > Then it got >reduced to using some of the ideas proposed by CW. ?!? i have no idea what you talk about. > Now we're down to programs >with a nice chess playing style. if you still call it a style problem, you only show that you have no idea about what we are talking. its not a question of style. the style is the result. > You've failed to extract anything but >superficial features of the programs you compare. what do you expect me to show to you: source code ?! > No science to be found. there is no science near you. all you do is offend people you don`t like because they are subjective and in your eyes ignorant/arrogant. science and vocabulary out of science is only your tick to hide that you want to offend people. if you were told what you do you say: oh - i just wanted to provoke. Mogens. pluralism is for all. not only for you. there is no right to offend people in general, just because you don`t like what they say. especially not in this club. please stop this. or i will complain to the moderators. thank you mogens. >Programs playing nice and attractive chess in your opinion. That's a nice >restricted definition. Why not just state that Gambit and CS Tal plays >attractive chess instead of trying to establish a nonexisting paradigm? Because i am not talking about playing style mogens. YOU do. Because you have to do. you have nothing else than talk about style, since you don`t have the programs ... >Or is nice and attractive program just another term for 'someone nice enough to >give me a free program'? :-))) if chris or christophe have to pay for the time i spent on testing their programs i guess it would not be done with a program. maybe this is the case with you. but i work over years with people. please don`t project to many things from your own point of view, your own reasons into my world. i am sure you will not understand anything, with your values. > Receiving a free program doesn't mean selling your soul >or abolishing any attempts at objectivity. i do not sell my sould to anybody, i never have. my soul belongs to me. > You did it with CS Tal and now Gambit >Tiger. Do you see a pattern? CSTal is an interesting program that makes me enthusiastic. i like it. Gambit-Tiger is another strong and interesting playing program. if i see a pattern? of course. i met both programmers when they had not such a strong programs. and it was my wish to help them, because i found that their programs "have something" that i do like. i am sure you will find a reason again. maybe not that i wanted their programs for free. but i am sure if you and your genius mind find a "logical" explanation, you will tell us. i think i liked that chris early programs showed, by all weaknesses they had in the past (ChessPlayer2150 or earlier versions on ATARI) that chris implemented knowledge. the approach was not a bean counter approach. When christophe send me his tiger (he participated at championship in paris where me met first) i instantly saw that this program is very strong and plays very very good chess. of course i wanted this program and i would have payed for it, if it would have been on the market. but this was not the case. "You did it with CS Tal and now Gambit Tiger." Of course "i did it" with them. you forget to mention Gandalf, mogens. I like steen and dan too. and we also met at times. and share the same enthusiasm when gandalf again kills fritz (munich) or even when gandalf throws tiger back to the 3rd rank, i like this very much. because i like to see intelligent programs make their way. i would call this friendship mogens. it normally develops out of fruitful working times/relations, or projects. or when you share something. this "pattern" (friendship) is new to you ? i am a little worried about your social abilities. don`t you have friend mogens ? >I must have missed the post where you decided to found a club based solely on >your opinions. i do not found a club. i am having an opinion that is different from yours. and your problem seems to be that you unwilling to tolerate because your square-mind cannot cope with my hip statements. i see you have to jump on me therefore. not that you are the first one. we all have our anti-egos. I had it with bernd schneider, günter rehburg and others in the past. i do e.g. from time to time have to argue with harald. but this can be, seen over a long range of years, not be problematical. although i argue much with harald and we often are different opinion he is not offending me. it seems the thing with you is different. and also not with me. you jumped on others too. maybe you think that this behaviour of yours is ok. and accepted because you give logical reasons why you "provoked" us. but i don´t think it is allowed here to jump on many people, just because you are fed up or not under your own control anymore. it would be a good idea IMO if you would sleep a night about all this before you answer. if you need help you can also send me an email and i will try to answer you without attacking you again. friendship and sharing same nice moments, but still having pluralistic and a variety of opinions, this is what i like to see and live and be within. I don`t like to see on the other hand when somebody jumps on my friends, for no reason. i can tolerate this once. but you do IMO overstep a tolerable border. and IMO you do it by will. this seems not normal to be. but i am no psychologist. maybe you ask somebody who is a professional in that are about your problems with other people having different opinion than you have. thank you mogens. i am sure you will find a wise way to recalibrate your point of vievs again. > It came across as an obvious conclusion supported by something >resembling evidence. Silly me ;o). i don`t want to further comment on your attacks. please stop to attack people because they have other opinions. that would be enough. thank you mogens. >It's not a matter of opinion. They're not unique. You need a bigger club. thank you mogens. >You're missing the point, again. The empirical approach will most likely prove >that Gambit Tiger or RT2 is the strongest available program. The problem is your >inability to substantiate your conclusions by anything other than belief. my beliefs and my recognition of them are much faster than any of your proving. its very easy to recgnize how strong a chess program is. you don`t need 10 or 100 or 1000 games to find out. you underestimate the human brain mogens. religion is a powerful thing. its so powerful because it gets linked to human emotions directly without the use of the logical brain halve. feelings / emotions are much more precise. When i feel that something is wrong, i see this much faster than any machine can recognize. you can deny this. you can even deny the fact that the brain exists and that emotions or feelings exists. you are no machine mogens. you have emotions too. and when i have to be honest, its very obvious that you have emotions, mogens. >Religion has nothing to do in computer chess, though a prophet with the name of >Czub would be a first. if your scientific methods are 10 to 100 times slower in recognizing that a chess program is strong or stronger than another, i think you will still need the help of prophets :-))) you are the classical materialist mogens. you believe that only is true what YOU see. but often these people are blind. live has more than your primitive science, or what you call science. human senses are far more superior to autoplayer-matches. any human beeing with training can tell you much earlier about the strength of a chess program than any autoplayer session can find out. >The logic you apply is called "Erasmus Montanus"-logic in Denmark, because of >the play "Erasmus Montanus" by Ludvig Holberg (1684-1754). It basically goes >like this: > >"You can't fly, a stone can't fly. Ergo you are a stone." > >Mogens. aha. it seems denmark is a very small country. do they have more to say than stuff like this. any other culture or inventions ? i hope this is not all you have to give. whatever. your point of views are from the 16th century, thats right mogens. you lost a few centuries. i am sure you will not miss them when you quote strange people like erasmus soandso. i hope the best for you. there have always been people like you. they are called excorcists. i have no problem with religion. i can combine my science and ideas and values. it seems you cannot. this must be very difficult for you.
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.