Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:58:08 07/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2002 at 17:30:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 25, 2002 at 13:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 25, 2002 at 12:34:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 2002 at 11:24:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 24, 2002 at 23:13:54, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 24, 2002 at 14:09:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>For all of you who want to study the mentioned article, here is the URL >>>>>> >>>>>>http://f50.parsimony.net/forum200318/messages/1063.htm >>>>> >>>>>Rolf didn't write this. That had to have been written by someone inside the >>>>>founder's group, and anyone who has been paying attention knows the style of the >>>>>author. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>> >>>>I agree. I am _certain_ about who wrote it. Although it could have been >>>>in cooperation with Rolf. Since the obvious author and Rolf sort of >>>>"reconnected" later in r.g.c.c... >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>Bob, >>>is this now the new style in CCC? You as a moderator you speculate or others >>>insinuate, that I wrote such an article? >> >>Why don't you re-read what I wrote. I _specifically_ said that I knew who >>wrote it, although it was possible they collaborated with you in doing so." >> >>If I know who it was, and I suspect he could have collaborated with you to do >>so, then how could you have been the author? You collaborated with yourself? > > >Bob, please try to control your tendency to bash me and my language as a >foreigner. This is regarded as most impolite. I did not bash you, _or_ your language. I pointed out that I did not say what you claimed I said... > >Second remark: would you please be so kind to re-read what I wrote? I >_specifically_ said "You as a moderator you speculate". Sorry, but I don't write posts as a moderator. I write here as a member of CCC. I respond as a moderator when someone complains via moderator email to the three of us... > And then I began to talk >about others. Does it mean - in American English - that automatically the two >activities were connected? In the same sentence, yes it does. In the same paragraph, yes it does. > With speculating I meant exactly your speculation >about my possible co-authorship or assistance of some sort. I said "collaboration". Even if you didn't directly get involved in the post in question, you were collaborating with "the author" a year or two ago when things erupted in r.g.c.c about the general subject the author complains about in "the post". > Is it a good >role-model for a moderator to toss such wild speculations against other people? >And your only evidence is the observation that some "ROlf sort of" >did something on rgcc? I don't know and I don't care. I am not a moderator 24 hours a day. I am a moderator when someone complains. I don't change my writing style when I am "in" and "out"... I have been a moderator three times now. I have been a non-moderator for two periods of time as well... > >Third remark: can't you see that this is by far not computerchess? What? the false history about CCC? CCC _is_ about computer chess.. > > >>Try again... > >Forth remark: please do not seduce me to do something forbidden. ;) > > >> >>> >>>Show me one single part of data in that article that could have been made or >>>even influenced or my idea! >> >>Oh, the part about Ed. Etc... > >Fifth remark: How could I know something about Ed and his business? You are >completely misleaden, also, when I have made peace with Ed since long. Would I >write against a brother? Does it make sense to you? About etc I have no other >news actually. I didn't say "you know something about Ed and his business." I said you had a lot to say about Ed and his business a couple of years ago, and going backward for a few years. Nobody said that just because you chose to talk about him, that you had any idea what you were talking about... > >So in sum, could you please come back to the standards of the charta for CCC and >talk about CC and the different meta problems we talked about? Sorry... I am thru talking in circles about possible cheating... and the lack of solutions to same... > >> >>> >>>Most of these details, what who did for the business, what he did not, what who >>>did when and after what "band-waggoning" (quote from the article) I did _not_ >>>know! And could not know - because I was not a member of the specific groups. >> >>I don't disagree. >> >>> >>>So I ask you if this is honest if you tear me into such a topic. >> >>I didn't tear you into anything. However, you and the "author" did do a lot >>of collaboration/back-patting/attaboying over in r.g.c.c a while back. Recall >>that??? > >No, I do not. Listen, I am absolutely independant, I'm not working for or with >someone. "attaboying"? Attaboy... as in "attaboy Chris, you tell 'em how they wronged me..." >You mean the terrorist Atta? Look, some strange German >members of CC have just "found" out that I were a dangerous mole and a "steered >underground assassinate" (Pordzik) for ChessBase or CSS, the journal. I'm only >happy that nobody here called me Bin Laden or Mephisto yet. Or Son of Sam, or >how was the name of the motion picture? Thanks to you and all my other friends >here in CCC. > > > >> >> >>> >>>You could do a way better job if you finally presented the data from Crafty in >>>the axb5 position of DB2 in 1997. Did you read the results from HIARCS 8? No >>>narrowing after 30 hours. >> >>So? "no computer can" doesn't mean _every_ computer must before the statement >>can be proven. Only one is enough. We already have fritz. And with Crafty >>being about .08 apart on the two moves, that is close enough so that if it >>played either I wouldn't immediately think that someone had helped it... > >I see. I'm a bit confused because usually you present the output of your Crafty. >Something doesn't fit here. What if Crafty would seperate the two moves in >deeper modes. I would report that. I ran it for 36 hours before the machine crashed. I started it again but had to stop it as I have students using that cluster for final projects that are due next week. When I get good analysis I will again try to post it... > >Could you give me the reference where you got fritz? Today we must check very >carefully, you know. We accepted results without gamescores, but sometimes we >must make some controls unexpectedly. Search back thru _this_ thread. Someone else ran it for quite a time before they got both moves with identical scores. Wasn't me. I don't own any commercial program at all... > >> >> >> >>> >>>In sum - could you come back on-topic and leave speculations and ad-hominem >>>insults to others as a moderator? You cn try what you want - I would never >>>violate the charta of this forum, so it's senseless to provoke me. >> >> >>I'm not provoking _anybody_. But then I am not engaged in the things you like >>to do either. You _try_ to provoke so you can claim "foul". You try to mislead and twist things. > >Insulting mode again? There _is_ a difference between "insulting" and "truth". > Please! This is very wrong. Or are you so unhappy about >the HIARCS 8 results for the axb5 position that you must spread ad hominems? I'm not happy or unhappy about _any_ results of any program. Why would I be??? >Show me where I wrote false ideas, comments, conclusions, questions and >statements, but do not insult here. > >> >>As elvis said, it is all in your history... > >Until yesterday I had no problem with Elvis Pordzik. Suddenly he had this crazy >idea with the "mole", you could read "steered underground assassinator". Are you >really taking him for serious? In hours or days he will take back the nonsense. >And then? You know what a famous programmer told me long ago in 1996? "The whole >computerchess business is full of paranoia." Until now I couldn't find the >reason why. I think this is not so bad in other sports. Like in CC they all must >have secrets but then people change from one team to the other and have new >secrets. > >I have a really serious question for you. > >Could it be that the reason for the special situation in CC is the fact that >it's simply not possible, as you told me more than once, to control the output >and to prevent any form of cheating? Why has it taken you this long to get this point? I have only said it 1000 times by now... > For you in the 60s this was simply a >knowledge with no consequences. But today? >Have you any idea how we could establish a new relaxed spirit of fun and >competition with a minimum of control techniques, say coming from a commission >of some experts who visit big events? Or is even this all in vain? Preventing cheating is impossible. Proving that it happened can not be done in 100% of the cases. Proving that it did not happen is totally impossible. > >Could you give us your view on such questions with a look-back on historical >events? > Which "historical events"??? > >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.