Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 10:42:25 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 12:49:51, Thorsten Czub wrote: >anything in live is interpretation. you cannot forbid to interprete any >opinion that is different from yours, mogens. No, but I can question the interpretation and I intend to continue doing so. >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. It's rather obvious. Data is nothing without interpretation and context. The relevant process is hypothesis, relevant data, analysis and conlusion to put it in simple, understandable terms. >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. Who mentioned anything about problem? You do have a problem if you judge solely by the result and not the process. Especially since you're obviously making conclusions about the process itself. That simply doesn't make sense. >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. Again you miss the point. Asking provokative questions without being offensive (I wasn't) either results in better argumentation by the other party or reveals flaws. I achieved both IMHO. >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. Please do, even though I have a hard time imaging what you can complain about. >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 ... You made the connection between CS Tal and GT through their style, I never mentioned it until you did. That's the only "fact" you have and that is as close to nothing as one can get. >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) Given that you have entered so many "fruitful" projects, I'm surprised that you appear to have very little knowledge about the programs in question. Otherwise the style connection is breaking under the pressur of proving your assertations. I think you're one of those "testers" that tell the programmers what they want to hear, just to get the next free program. >is new to you ? i am a little worried about your social abilities. >don`t you have friend mogens ? Yes, I do. Thank you for asking. >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. Uninformed opinions and incorrect conclusions are not exactly hip. But you're right about one thing. They're only statements. Nothing else. [snip babble] >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. Arguing with people I agree with seem rather pointless. >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. Thank you, I certainly hope so. Nonetheless, your beliefs and recognition of them are obviously flawed if you can make incorrect statements about something like chess programs ability to plan. Beliefs are valuable if they don't rely on faith and denial. Yours do. >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. We're not talking about the number of games. The number of games are irrelevant in themselves if the conclusions are incorrect. If you intend to make relevant statements about chess programs based on limited data you have to do better than expressing beliefs. >there have always been people like you. they are called excorcists. Sometimes they come in handy when ignorance has infested someone. If that is the case, I'm proud to be an exorcist. Noone is beyond redemption, so don't despair :o). 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.