Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:12:57 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 08:27:21, Mike S. wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 07:12:07, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On August 26, 2002 at 00:51:24, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2002 at 15:50:26, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>You are very much right there! But I guess ChessBase could do >>>>something about this by making the Fritz.ctg's only accessable >>>>to the Fritz engines. Should not be such a big problem to >>>>accomplish, I guess. >>> >>>(...) >>>You're suggesting a step backwards into chess software neanderthal. :o)) >>>(...) > >>It's interesting how you mist to comment on the question. Since I have a bit >>experience from debates with you in CSS the computerchess journal very closely >>related with ChessBase, since F. Friedel is a leading member in both, I know >>what your're trying to achieve. You're trying to define reality (...) > >Maybe I've been overestimated a few times, but this beats everything :o). >Please, I'm really not trying to define reality. I'm busy trying to express my >view of reality, which is difficult enough (language etc.). Hey, Mike! I'm not accusing you of committing a crime. What I said is just a correlate of your smartness, not joking. A modern term is "spin doctor", perhaps this is better than ideologist. The only sharpness in the argument for me comes through the question on what you base your defining. The best is the scientifical what I always choose _if_ I'm able to do it. Ideology is not about science but 'interest'. Of course people can have interests. This isn't a crime either. In CSS forum my impression was that you made smart definitions but at times you simply rejected questions and objections that were objectively justified. But in the light of a certain interest you defined them as nonsense. The moment I insisted it wasn't you who responded or reacted angrily but in such a moment other people came forward and "confirmed" your definition with brutal force. At times I had wished that you then came forward and defended me that I had not at all surpassed the limits of a sound discussion. But then you kept silent. But this is the past. I still enjoy your usually good arguments. Not that I could always accept them. It's a sympathetical modesty when you talk about language but your thoughts are good without superior English. ;) > >But I've commented on the question, earlier: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?247649 > >>(...) >>GROMIT played with the FRITZ 7 ctg in SSDF! Yes! > >I have no clear opinion on the issue... there are several ideas which seem >reasonable (own books only, standard book for amateurs...). - It seems, or >seemed that SSDF will use general.ctg instead, but since it turned out that this >is the predecessor = Fritz 6-book, the discussion will continue. > >But it's obvious that using one of the very best commercial opening books for a >strong amateur must raise critizism. It was a typical "clumsy" SSDF decision, >like others I've mentioned (CM8K, H8 tournament book). OTOH they can do as they >wish of course, and still maintain to be one of the most important info sources. Good. Now let me show you where you are acting as a spin doctor, ok? We have still Jereon's idea that ChessBase could define that only FRITZ engines were allowed to use the FRITZ ctg. A spin doctor however is able to change the original debate. He doesn't even respond to a former proposal. That would only confuse the readers. A spin doctor simply puts the decision in the hands of the anyhow overburdened Swedes in the SSDF. And then all things work automatically. Since the Swedes are "anmateurs" (the association even goes to the usually neutral Swedes!) how could we even dare to criticise them!! Well, all very old arguments, not worth the paper they are written on, but the readers have exactly the expected reaction. The question to ChessBase is forgotten and the amateur Swedes could not be blamed. So, it stays as it was intended before. GROMIT is playing with FRITZ ctg. Now why you are a spin doctor for whom?? For the SSDF? No. For you? No. For ChessBase? Perhaps. Why? Because ChessBase is acquited of all accounts. More -they are not at all the right address! The correct address following Mike is the SSDF itself!! - Q.E.D. (That is what makes the quality of a good spin doctor. We have a completely twisted situation. Someone put a question in direction of Chessbase, now suddenly ChessBase is no longer focussed.) BTW the success of a spin doctor is diminished the moment the twist is being shown to the readers. Then suddenly it's clear that the original question is not yet answered and that the spin doctor has only tried to twist it. If a spin doctor does this twisting repeatedly in favor of a certain party, then I think that he does it intentiously. Here for ChessBase. > >But it's just natural IMO that some details will be discussed and critizised, >from different viewpoints. That reflects the importance of the SSDF list. In special if we have nothing else. >People >don't care critizising things which are not interesting, or unimportant. I agree. > >Maybe our main concern should be that the SSDF testers can keep getting their >fun out of what the are doing with much effort... OTOH, if a rising number of >doubtful desicions reduces the faith people have in the list, nobody else than >SSDF themselves are to blame. Ouch. But in consequence you are right if you were right in your statements above. We are only one step away from the point where someone will say that it is clearly dishonest to criticise the SSDF even if they decided the question this way and this someone will say that they might lose their fun in SSDF if we continued the thread about the GROMIT games. At that moment a real spin doctor could dissapear into the distance and put his focus onto different problems. The Work of a spin doctor is preparing the situation so that such a short-circuit of other people becomes possible. This is a very difficult task, what the spin doctor is doing. For instance it would be totally ineffective if the spin doctor himself would simply argue pro ChessBase and trying to prove that ChessBase must not intervene at all. The mentioning of the company alone could motivate other people and suddenly the original question of Jereon would be very actual again. Such a malpractice of a spin doctor would be contra-productive. > >>Please could you be so kind and crawl back to find a reasonable definition for >>the allowance, perhaps fairness is another important term to define here, of >>such a malpractice? What is the official position of ChessBase? > >The problem is that terms like "definition" or "official position" are much too >sophisticated to apply here... :o) Say you are not successful with your twist and the question of Jereon must be answered I am sure ChessBase will qickly take back the allowance for using the FRITZ ctg. But before _that_ is necessary the debate will be censored. Rolf Tueschen > >Regards, >M.Scheidl
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.