Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:53:28 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 11:16:16, José Carlos wrote: >On July 15, 2002 at 10:49:00, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 15, 2002 at 10:30:15, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2002 at 10:14:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 15, 2002 at 08:29:14, José Carlos wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 15, 2002 at 07:22:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:39:22, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:25:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:03:05, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 18:18:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 18:04:56, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 07:03:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 04:57:21, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 01:38:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 19:05:35, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 17:16:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 16:57:51, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 15:09:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 08:02:09, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 07:15:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 07:09:02, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 05:35:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 12, 2002 at 19:16:31, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 12, 2002 at 14:56:11, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi CCC, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In Rebel I maintain a statistic file, on every iteration a counter is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>incremented with 1 (see column 2) representing the iteration depths Rebel has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>searched. When a new best move is found a second counter is incremented with 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(see column 3) representing how many times a new best move has been found on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>given iteration depth, between brackets the percentage is calculated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As you can see the very first plies Rebel often changes to new best moves, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>however when the depth increases and increases the chance Rebel will change its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mind drops and drops. From 16 plies on the chance a new better move is found is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>below 2%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I wonder what this all means, it is still said (and believed by many) that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doubling in computer speed gives 30-50-70 elo. That could be very well true for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lower depths but the below statistic seem to imply something totally different, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a sharp diminishing return on deeper depths. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting also is colum 4 (Big Score Changes), whenever a big score difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is measured (0.50 up or down) the percentage is calculated. This item seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be less sensitive than the change in best move. However the maintained "Big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Score Changes" statistic is not fully reliable as it also counts situations like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>being a rook or queen up (or down) in positions and naturally you get (too) many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>big score fluctuations. I have changed that and have limit the system to scores >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the range of -2.50 / +2.50 but for the moment have too few games played to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>show the new statistic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyway the number of positions calculated seem to be more than sufficient (over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>100,000) to be reliable. The origin came from extensive testing the latest Rebel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>via self-play at various time controls. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed, if I get this right, the second column (moves searched) is the number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of positions in which the program has reached the depth given by column 1. If it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was really "moves", there would be about 3x in depth 2 than in depth 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the idea is that many more changes happen in low depths because the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>program is there many more times, so I (ignoring "Big Changes") calculated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>couple of other numbers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ratio moves changes / moves searched and the relative % of changes from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ply to ply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SEARCH OVERVIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =============== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Depth Moves Moves Moves Changed / rel % of changes from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searched Changed Moves Searched ply n-1 to n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 113768 0 = 0.0% 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 113768 44241 = 38.9% 0.388870333 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 113768 34262 = 30.1% 0.30115674 77.44% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 113194 32619 = 28.8% 0.288168984 95.69% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 113191 30697 = 27.1% 0.271196473 94.11% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 108633 28516 = 26.2% 0.262498504 96.79% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 108180 25437 = 23.5% 0.235135885 89.58% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 102782 22417 = 21.8% 0.218102391 92.76% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 82629 15400 = 18.6% 0.186375244 85.45% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>10 59032 9144 = 15.5% 0.154899038 83.11% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>11 39340 5183 = 13.2% 0.131748856 85.05% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>12 23496 2350 = 10.0% 0.100017024 75.91% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13 12692 957 = 7.5% 0.075401828 75.39% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>14 6911 396 = 5.7% 0.057299957 75.99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>15 4032 193 = 4.8% 0.047867063 83.54% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>16 2471 72 = 2.9% 0.029138001 60.87% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>17 1608 26 = 1.6% 0.016169154 55.49% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>18 1138 17 = 1.5% 0.014938489 92.39% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>19 921 6 = 0.7% 0.006514658 43.61% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>20 795 7 = 0.9% 0.008805031 135.16% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21 711 1 = 0.1% 0.00140647 15.97% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>22 636 2 = 0.3% 0.003144654 223.58% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>23 574 5 = 0.9% 0.008710801 277.00% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>24 507 1 = 0.2% 0.001972387 22.64% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>25 451 3 = 0.7% 0.006651885 337.25% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>26 394 1 = 0.3% 0.002538071 38.16% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>27 343 2 = 0.6% 0.005830904 229.74% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>28 296 2 = 0.7% 0.006756757 115.88% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>29 269 0 = 0.0% 0 0.00% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Column (D) means the probability at a certain position at a certain depth to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get a change, according to your data, for a random position (I assume you chose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>random positions, because this data comes from real games). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I assume that the positions that was searched to big depthes like 16 are only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>positions that the program had enough time to search in the game to depth 16. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These positions are not random positions from games. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I expect in random positions from games to see at least 10% changes at depth 16. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's interesting that Ed, who has been doing chess programming for a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>years rely on statistical data, and you, absolute newbie to chess programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>can 'expect'. Quite amazing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Very telling about your lack of knowledge about interdisciplinary thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you needed several hundred posts from Dann to understand the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept of elo ratings. Lack of knowledge is easy to solve, while lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intelligence is a real problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, interdisciplinary thinking has nothing to do with validating intuitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your habits are a bit strange for CCC. You want to insult people for their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intelligence? Didn't you know that this is out of fashion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you feel insulted? Oh, sorry, I didn't insult you, really. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also you cannot prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your visions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visions? I don't have visions. Maybe you take me for someone else ?! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I can prove where you lack of knowledge. Look at this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know if or when I understood Elo system? Dann didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>explain anything to _me_, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't feel bad because Dann had to explain that to you. It can happen to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everybody. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He was the only one having the courage to give his verdict about SSDF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Elo system - _with_ me! We two the only ones. And you were dreaming of his role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as _my_ teacher? That's funny. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm glad you enjoied Dann's lessons. Dann is very good at that. I also always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>enjoy his posts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do not understand what validity means... ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good argument! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no idea of what interdisciplinary means too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damn, you leave me without words! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are the typical expert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with narrow views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for calling me expert... bah, just a little degree in computer science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and a few publications don't make me an expert... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do not insult Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't. He knows it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, do you feel the need to defend him? Don't you think he is capable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>defend himself? I think it's you who is insulting Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because he knows a lot about chess. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing where we agree! Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>what I mean? Chess is the basis for computerchess. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words of wisdom... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only interdisciplinary help could enlighten you. If you have questions, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tell me, I'll try to do my best for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much. I'll ask you anything I don't understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No reason to become so upset only because I told you not to insult Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have insulted him on his lack of intelligence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uri knows I didn't. It seems _you_ are not capable to understand. I'm sorry, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not gonna explain _you_ what I said to Uri. He understood. That's enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please, stop defending him from nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You did not insult me for lack of intelligence but you said that you find it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>strange that I disagree with Ed when Ed has a lot of experience about chess >>>>>>>>>>>>>>programming and I am new in the task of chess programming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that the fact that I am new in chess programming was not relevant for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the discussion because I do not need to be a programmer to have an opinion about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>data that everyone can see after hours of analyzing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I doubt if Ed has more experience than me in giving programs hours to analyze >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and looking if the program changes it's mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The data that Ed gave is from games and if programs can get depth 16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>in games then the position is relatively simple so the program usually does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>change it's mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Note that I believe in diminishing returns but I still expect significant gain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>from hardare in the near future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe that the difference in comp-comp games at 24 hours per move may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>only 40 elo from doubling the speed and not 70 elo but 40 elo is still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My comment was about you "expecting" where Ed was providing experimental data, >>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing more nothing less. Then I asked you for data, you posted some logs and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>find them interesting. That's all. Rolf just invented some nonsense to create >>>>>>>>>>>>>mess. That's his style. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Some people find it helpful to crucify the reporter who reported their own >>>>>>>>>>>>mistakes. That is telling! You brought the indecent argument that Ed were >>>>>>>>>>>>programmer and Uri NOT. That alone is telling. Because the one had nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>to do with the other in the question that was debated here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Uri understood it. I've already explained it to you. I won't explain it again. >>>>>>>>>>>I'm not so patient as Dann. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Another change of the truth. Uri wrote the almost exact phrase I addressed to >>>>>>>>>>you. Period. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even now you didn't have the "idea" to apologize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _You_ should apologize. But I don't care at all what you do. You want to mess >>>>>>>>>>>and you do it. Well, if you enjoy that... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You should stop to project your character onto others. Period. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _You_ should. Period. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Instead you created a new >>>>>>>>>>>>insult against me. I should be responsible for the mess you brought yourself >>>>>>>>>>>>into. That is telling! Very telling. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep on looking at the mirror, instead of looking at me. Your words tell >>>>>>>>>>>about yourself. I find it funny. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This is the proof. Your confession that you find it funny, you enjoy it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I confess I enjoy seeing yourself talking to the mirror. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You enjoy a mess. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No I don't. I've been posting here for some years. People know I don't. Nobody >>>>>>>>>believes your lies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>_Your_ mess. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again talking to the mirror. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>All what I did was the reporting and the warning that >>>>>>>>>>you should stop it and apologize to Uri. Now you are confused about yourself. >>>>>>>>>>Again, that could be healed by your apology. To Uri, not me of course. I'm just >>>>>>>>>>the observer, you cannot insult me at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again talking to the mirror. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>For the readers I repeat what you did wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First you defend Uri (implying he can't himself), now you care for the >>>>>>>>>readers. Man, you must be a saint. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You attacked Uri by telling him >>>>>>>>>>that he were no programmer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stop this fantasy, please. I know Uri wrote Movei, which is quickly improving. >>>>>>>>>Why do you think Uri is no programmer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>and he still dared to differ from Ed, who were a >>>>>>>>>>programmer indeed, with opinions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I repeat I'm not so patient as Dann to explain this again to you. Read >>>>>>>>>previous post for an explanation or keep showing your unability to understand it >>>>>>>>>again and again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>This attack is indecent and should not >>>>>>>>>>be done here in CCC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good! Now you give me lessons how to behave in a forum! I'm so interested. >>>>>>>>>I'll search rgcc archives for more lessons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Here is what Uri wrote to you: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"You did not insult me for lack of intelligence but you said that you find it >>>>>>>>strange that I disagree with Ed when Ed has a lot of experience about chess >>>>>>>>programming and I am new in the task of chess programming." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing to add to what Uri said. It's crystal clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Again, bringing forward such arguments is indecent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? Your above statement says: experiece doesn't count at all and it is >>>>>>>indecent to make conclusions out of it. People can draw their own conclusions >>>>>>>about your seriousness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Saying one is programmer and >>>>>>>>a very experienced one and the other not so experienced or beginner and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what? I'm a begginer to chess programming also. The programs I write in my >>>>>>>work have nothing to do with chess, so I only have Averno as a hobby. So what >>>>>>>now? Do you think I'm insulting myself? Are you gonna defend me from me? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And you did the same with me in older discussion about SSDF and Elo and also >>>>>>>>now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again. Don't feel insulted because Dann had to explain you how Elo system >>>>>>>works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The truth is that statistics and things like that have nothing to do with >>>>>>>>computerchess programming qualities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a good proof of how much do you know about computerchess and >>>>>>>statistics. Well, maybe Dann didn't explain it so well after all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is not my own opinion, it's a simple truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, yes. You don't have opinions, you have simple truths. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Good idea to search rgcc. In special read my messages from August 2001 on. >>>>>>>>All the old stuff from 1996 to 1998 is expressed by a virtually 22 y. >>>>>>>>old young man, what many people misunderstood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> "I'm not wrong. People don't understand me". Good argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Please read also my Mosaik on >>>>>>>>Schachcomputerwelt, in German unfortunately. The address is >>>>>>>>http://members.aol.com/mclanecxantia/myhomepage/rolfsmosaik.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, I don't speak german (lack of knowledge?). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You may have the final word. Because you are a chessprogrammer. ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, please, don't leave me with the final word. Continue stating your simple >>>>>>>truths. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> José C. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since I diagnosed that logic is not the biggest talent of my opponent in the >>>>>>game above and that I saw that he's a real programmer, I ask this to all, what >>>>>>do you think of what is the exact definition of being a computerchess >>>>>>programmer, how big is the synergy effect of computerchess programming on >>>>>>general thinking processes and how large the part of own code should be that >>>>>>we start to speak of a computerchess programmer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Note please that this is a question to all, not primarily to my opponent above, >>>>>>who is very susceptible to magic thinking. For example real experts could >>>>>>perhaps explain how important the imagination is above straight perception for >>>>>>programmers. Are there certain parts in programming where you qua defining have >>>>>>the power to establish reality against different realities of other collegues? >>>>>>Is it possible to establish even different forms of logic? >>>>>> >>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>>> I won't answer your lies, since everybody can read above and see that, for >>>>>example, "magic thinking" is not something I'm susceptible to, but something you >>>>>invented for me. >>>>> Anyway thanks for your lessons on what a beeing a good programmer means. >>>>> >>>>> José C. >>>> >>>>Magic thinking is a polite paraphrasing! Perhaps you get it now -> >>>> >>>>Look at this: you insulted Uri for having less experience in chess programming >>>>(!) than Ed, >>> >>> So _you_ believe having less experience is an insult. Incredible. >> >>You ran out of sensible arguments lately, I am sorry. For you in slow motion: >>that someone has less experience in chess programming is not relevant if someone >>is talking about something away from computerchess programming. So, if someone >>[I could identify you in the role] jumps into this and tells the man that he's >>less experienced, then this is identified as offensive and insulting. >>Credible ehtics! > > > > You keep feeling inferior in some way I can't totally understand. Let's see, >Uri and I have a civilized conversation in which no one feels offendended. This alone shows all your confusion. First of all it was _not_ civilized when you metioned Uri's less experience in comparison to Ed, but dream on and deny that. Then it's a fact that Uri is much too polite to tell you that you had insulted him. He knows you longer than I do. Now I wouldn't write such things because of the dominance of your "magic" thinking. But since we're friends now, we have no need to deal with such peanuts. We don't need ethics anymore. >Then >_you jump_ on me attacking me for my lack of knowledge on something that has >nothing to do with the topic discussed. Yes, sorry. It was the past when I still had you in the normal ranges of ethics. >Then, not having that weak argument >anymore you you attack my ethics trying to prove that I insulted someone that >has stated clearly that I didn't. This is a lie. A clear lie. But with "magic" thinking you are able to see it differently. >So what's your problem? Do you feel inferior >and try to project that inferiority feeling to Uri to release yourself from your >anxiety? Forget about Uri, _he can_ speak for himself and _he did_ speak for >himself. Yes, and he told you what you had done wrong. >Now do the same, speak for yourself. Tell me what's _your_ problem. Since we are friends now, I have no longer a problem with your lack of ethics. > > > >>>>but Uri was talking about something where the experience of >>>>_programming_ was no point at all, therefore you attacked _me_ (!), >>>>insulting me that Dann had to explain to me something >>> >>> So _you_ believe needing an explanation is an insult. Incredible. >> >>Magic thinking means, that someone badly needs a way out of the mess he put >>himself into and therefore he begins to crawl and to attack innocent >passengers. > > > > Is this your problem? If you want to talk about it, I'll do my best to try to >help you. No, excuse me but you are most improbably a good choice for a debate about ethics. > > > >>The magic thinker was you and the innocent passenger was me. > > > > Again talking to the mirror? > > > >>The way how you took Uri to task, at least you tried, is in itself insulting. >Credible ethics. > > > You're obssesed with Uri. Forget about him. He said what he wanted to say. >Talk about you. Free yourself from that that ties you. Let it out. You demonstrate very good the difference between intelligence and ethics. > > >>>>in hundreds (!!) of posts. However the truth was that Dann was one of very few who _supported_ my critic of SSDF, >>> >>> :) Incredible. >> >>Yes, but the truth. Now, let the magic begin... :) > > > No, Rolf, magic does not exist. This is real life. Don't forget it. For me yes, but for you? > > >>>>therefore a fact _you_ were angry about me >>> >>> ?! >>> >>>>... who had written in R.G.C.C. (!!) >>> >>> Any reader interested can read above, in this post, why I mention rgcc when >>>this Rolf tries to teach me lessons how to behave in a forum. >> >>Is "this" (Rolf) a minor form of expressing some insulting secret thoughts?? :) > > > Your mind betrays to you. I just made a typographic mistake. I was going to >write "this guy", then remembered I don't know how old are you, went to delete >that to put "Rolf" instead and forgot "this". Then you immediately think I'm >insulting you. I'm afraid that could be some kind of paranoia. I hope I'm wrong >here. No, it's only exact reading. But I see that you have a strange tendency to rely on psychiatric vocabulary. Not this time, please. > > >>In a way I'm happy that we have no TV yet. I'm sure that you had a lot of >>hand-waving in mind. > > > See the comment above. I was referring to possible differences in cultural habits. > > >>>>So backwards, it's because I have written in R.G.C.C. you have the right >>>>to insult Uri for having less experience than Ed in computerchess programming? :-)) >>> >>> Finally you totally lose contact with reality. >> >>Which reality? The magic or the real? > > > Forget about magic, Rolf. This is real life. I know, never saw something else. But you, my friend? > > >>>>My question was if such looped *"magic"* thinking were favorable for chess >>>>programming. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> Congratulations. You're brilliantly showing your logic. >> >>Thanks, dear José. You're welcome. > > > My pleasure, dear Rolf. > > José C. Hope that all this won't cause too much trouble for you... Hope, that AVERNO is ok... Rolf Tueschen
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.