Author: Don Dailey
Date: 17:07:50 06/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 1998 at 11:11:30, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On June 01, 1998 at 10:23:51, Don Dailey wrote: >>I get the impression everyone's tiny world was shattered when Fritz >>took the number one spot. Isn't it time we GROW up and just >>CONSIDER the remote possibility that your favorite program (no >>matter which one it is) might not be the top program? > >Don - you simplify. >It is NOT a question of growing up. >I have fritz for a long time. I have to machines. I play the whole day >with my machines. It is not a question of ACCEPTING truth and overcome a >shock or growing. >It is the simple fact that I don't have these results. And other friends >I do have (And they do also computerchess for a long time, and they are >also programmers, and it is not chris or any other guy involved in the >vendetta business) the same problems to understand. >Nobody of them wants to tell their doubts in a public forum because they >found it under their level to discuss with enrique or moritz in the way >the matter is discussed here. >So the only guy arguing with them here is me. Since i have no problems >to transform myself into ANY level, even the meanest low level you could >expect. >So the question is not, can we stand reality. >The priblem we have is: we cannot reproduce the reality other people >want to convince us. My point isn't whether you are right or wrong, I just believe the burden of proof is on you. If I accused you of child molestation, this would be such as serious accusation that I SHOULD be required to present very strong evidence. I could not say, "well, I think I saw him talking to a little boy the other day." Saying, or implying that Fritz is cheating should require proof, or powerful evidence. I don't mean absolute proof which I agree is almost a myth, but the type of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) that would stand up before judges. I view the burden to be on you because SSDF has been trusted and is a reputable organization. If this changes (and I see you are working very hard to change it) then perhaps the burden of proof will shift to those who believe Fritz is not weak. Also, I have doubts that Fritz could do anything that would affect their results greatly. If they are using a lot more hash tables and a lot more time, then maybe they could get on top, IF they were already close. But your contention is that Fritz is pretty weak. It makes your cheating claims just appear outrageous. Again, it's not impossible that they are cheating and I'm not saying there is no possible way, I'm only saying you need to demonstrate this convincingly. Just by making the accusation you try to shift the burden of proof to others and if they don't respond you scream foul! If someone accused me of being a child molester, I would not feel obligated to disprove them, it would be their job to prove I was. I could accuse you of cheating if I wanted to. I could make a note of everthing you do, cherry pick any event that looks in the least like evidence and proclaim it widely enough to the world that a few people might believe. If you chose to ignore my groundless claim then I could berate you for not refuting my claim. I could then proclaim loudly that you have failed time and time again to refute me, therefore you must be guilty. I have suddenly made you the one that must defend yourself, although I was the one that behaved improperly. Nice trick huh? It's like the jilted girlfriend who cry's rape to get back at someone. How can an innocent person defend against this when most of the damage is done by the accusation itself? That is why I feel so strongly about this kind of thing. Making an accusation should be done with great soberness. >>People deserve credit for their hard work. If you >>don't have absolute proof of something, ANY accusations show >>an incredible lack of class and style. You have cast so much >>doubt on this result that you effectively snatch the >>satisfaction away from people who JUST MAY deserve to have >>it. You are wrong to do this and it's incredibly selfish. > >I am also working hard. I don't have an autoplayer at all. >Never in life you will have ABSOLUTE proof. >Even in a law-suit with death penalty in US it sometimes happens that >you killed the wrong guy. How should we come to 100 % or ABSOLUTE proof >in a discussion where it is not about dead or alive ? > >It is not a question of style or class. >Thats nonsense. If we cannot reproduce the marvellous results of fritz, >we don't have a class problem but a FACT problem. >And the thing does not change with calling the other side idiots. > > >>- Don >> >>P.S. Please do not come back with "why's", why did they do >> this? Why did they do that? Because the only answer >> that will satisfy you is that THEY MUST BE CHEATING > >I see no reason for your polemic comments. >You do as if it has to do with people not able to realize the facts. >In fact it is exactly the opposite. We don't have their facts. >And we have machines too. We have software here too. >All we don't have is their results. >And we have tested programs for years now. > >You make it into a b/w love/hate debate. >I have no problems to like a program when it wins. Or to criticize a >beloved program when it fails. >I have always attacked genius, rebel, mchess or hiarcs or tiger or cstal >when it played bullshit, or when I thought this is not ok. >So it is exactly the opposite of liking or hating. > >I have attacked ed that rebel 6 and rebel7 were nearly the same, and >there WAS no big difference in playing-strength. >I have attacked mchess/marty for killer-opening-books here in public, >although anybody of you believes (even marty) i do love mchess [in fact >I do]. >But this does not stop me from saying something what I feel that is >TRUE. > >Why the hell do you make a personal thing out of it and avoke it is a >hate/love thing. It isn't. > >I don't understand why you bring the discussion back to this trivial >point of prejudice. > >If you would be a moderator in a tv-show, I would BUH now. Since I think >you throw the whole discussion back into the beginning of the show. > >If this helps really ?!? >I doubt this. You have answered my post as if you felt I was speaking directly to you. And you seem slightly offended. But I wasn't even addressing you. My post was a response to someone else and even then I advised him that I wasn't directing it at him. Why did you respond if you do not feel you are doing these things? - Don
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.