Author: José Carlos
Date: 09:13:37 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 11:53:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Ok. I see you don't want to talk about your problem. Let me know if you need help. José C.
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.