Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:15:22 07/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
Let me try to give you a model for taking the good of someone's points! ######################################################################## On July 25, 2002 at 17:58:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Do you know why I have still no answer to my complaint? > > > >> 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. Sorry I will try to take more care! > >> 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". No! This wasn't me. I came back into rgcc just shortly before Sept 11. I think I had a few exchanges with Bruce end of August. Before that I wasn't there for long times. > > > > >> 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... I thought that as a moderator you should be a good role model for the members. If you go too far then hell will brak lose. > > > > >> >>Third remark: can't you see that this is by far not computerchess? > >What? the false history about CCC? CCC _is_ about computer chess.. No, your speculations about me. Or the outsorting of me as scapegoat or alien. > > > > >> >> >>>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... The crazy thing about this "past" is that what I did in fact was not serious and hard critic, it was just about the PR action where Ed mainly tried to get you into his database while I had thought that by filling the long questionary I could enter into something serious. Believe me one thing, the escalation was mainly a consequence of Ed's suspicion that I must be someone different than pretended simply because I "knew" too much and pretended to be absolutely free. It became a private war (!) [the expression alone is ridiculous] where Ed went wrong on the basis of false infos. This is nothing subjective since Ed sees this the same way. I repeated this to show you that Ed and I went into this without _real_ and _big_ reasons. Should give you some thoughts to think about. The same with _our_ "war". It was mainly about language and cultural differences (Europe vs Southern USA). I had many delusions regarding professors, that's true. This is why I'm today a bit oversensitive. We must stop it in the _beginning_ because it would escalate suddenly. Therefore I think it would help a lot if you could also be aware of the lingual difficulties for the foreigners. Not all what sounds aggressive to you must be meant so. It's simply a consequence of weak language knowledge. But it should not influence too much discussions in CC! But the moment you begin to play with words or tongue in cheek, you can assume that the foreign correspondant becomes confused. Simply because he can't follow you. I had many contacts with Americans, mainly wealthy young people, back in the 70s in Swiss Summers, but I did never meet Americans who played such aggressive games. They all knew that it was very polite that we Europeans talked with them in English. It was in the French part of Switzerland and nobody of the Americans spoke French. I do. Nobody spoke German either. So, I was a bit shocked when I entered international NGs. On the Fritzserver you can well observe the same happening. During GM play transmissions you can bet that American visitors quickly take over the communication in English and the few Germans who can't understand nor speak English must ask questions as if they were stupid guests. Of course English is international language and for me it's "normally" no problem. > > > > > >> >>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... META is the science aspect. Not only cheating. > > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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"? ****************About Chris W******************************************* > > >Attaboy... as in "attaboy Chris, you tell 'em how they wronged me..." Wanna know one thing? Never, never did I do this. Once, long ago I asked him about you. Know what he said? No, I don't want to be part of this, this is your own problem. Believe me this was the only time either he or me asked the other. You can think about Chris what you want. For me he's a very smart ironical guy who always can see different levels at the same time. This is the reason why it was so interesting to communicate with him. On the other hand he must have been very sensitive about his prog, in special when people only took the performances and didn't see the potential for future developments. Like the engaged amateurs Chris was a real lover of CC, he was more an artist. I still think that Chris could have shown the CC community the role model of independant thinking. Because of course it's much simpler to follow majorities. Chris is a great loss for CC. I am sure that he - besides possible faults - gave CC in a historical perspective many important impulses. Chris is educated in so many fields (politics, history, literature) that I miss him a lot here in the debates. In the end he couldn't bear - unfortunately - the passivity of the silent majority and he was kind of deeply shocked when suddenly he became aware of how easy he could lead smartest experts into something. He did never talk about but I felt that this was the main reason for his retreat also on the background of his family and many children. It's a pity that we do respect such troubling personalities only if they've become officially installed geniusses. I wish him all the best in his new life. May he find many positive reinforcement. We all live only one single life! ********************************************************************* > >>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... Thanks so much, I will hold my breath then. > > > > > >> >>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... I will do this, when I have all the postings in my reader. We have no search instrument for newer articles, alas. > > > > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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". Absolutely. And your asumption about me is wrong. Believe me. See Ed! And Ed like everybody did many things hat could be twisted one-handed. But we have the freedom not to do all we could do! > > > >> 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... ************Security due to probability******************* Easy one! Because I simply want to find more safety. At the time you didn't even think about today's events. So smarter men than me might will find a way out of the mess. We two already had solutions for resonable cases. Because it's always the question how much more costs it would take to crack the actual security. Therefore it might be possible to find a solution. I'm almost sure. A long time ago I wrote about a solution that combined reasonable safety with the secrecy of certain probability modes. And for event of say 6 days it must be possible to change the security modes so that a crack might be a practical impossibility. Things like that should be do-able. Give your input! Let's demonstrate the power of interdisciplinary braingames. Hopefully we have mathematicians and others here. Please everybody, join in our experiment. > > >> 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. Yes, but let's combine security with probability! > >> >>Could you give us your view on such questions with a look-back on historical >>events? >> > > >Which "historical events"??? With significance to our debate here. Showing you the impossibility, several ideas in the past, critical moments when cheating seemed to happen... anything. Please try to speak aboout the past whenever you can to the benefit of the younger readers and all. 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.