Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:25:16 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2002 at 10:44:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 04, 2002 at 06:53:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >We are not talking about me here but about Hyatt. How important is it >that a professor of good standing is writing down the truth in an >official article he writes? Such a question, put this way, is unknown in science. Because what is _the_ truth? Next, you are implying (in your first article here in the thread) that he lied, that he had something to hide so to speak. But for what purpose? To fool the whole CC and the computer industry too? And then you should rethink the whole procedures with this paper for JICCA. I my eyes, you are frustrated by the actual obstacles when you shouldn't be. You couldn't do better at the moment, as far as I could understand. But to execute your most prominent collegue, that's a bit too premature. In special if the reasons are not sound. If it all were just about the question if the truth etc. then it's very easy, of course then you are right. He must. But how and what truth etc, only then are nearer to the real problems here. I wished that you could preserve your 'fire' through those moments of deception and then you have all the chances to further improve. Most important try to always search for certain internal blind spots, they often hide something helpful. Since you can read German as I know, I recommand to you and all readers with a minimum of German knowledge the following book I discovered yesterday. It's full of examples and analogies from chess and it's also discusses computerchess. On page 287 for instance is a chapter about the chess competence of DEEP BLUE. The author teaches experimental psychology in Budapest. ISBN 3 499 61419 7 Author: Laszlo Merö Die Grenzen der Vernunft Kognition, Intuition und komplexes Denken (Habits of Mind The Power and the Limits of Rational Thought) Rowohlt Taschenbuch, August 2002 rororo 61419 (Original Title, apostrophs omitted: Uj Eszjarasok A racionalis gondolkodas ereje es korlatai) > >I mean if you, just released from prison or madhouse, >to just give an example, write down some faked results and submit it >to ICCA and they post it, then i can understand if it is not getting >taken serious. > >Now how important is it that a government official with a professor >in front of his name is writing down the truth? You can top this by saying that ICCA collegues must have helped to let appear the paper in the actual version. You know that I am a critic of SSDF from my first hour here in the Internet. As the first in R.G.C.C. and later here in CCC I have criticised the DB2 team because of violations of science (ethics issue) in their treatment of Kasparov. But here the case is totally different. Bob wrote about numbers and results. And as you can see right now some things can be reproduced and some certainly not. But here the motivation to win or to get a lot of money or to become the next Prize Winner or to get a better job in the hierarchy, all this is absent here. Why don't you take back this intentional mass fraud etc? Either you prove that Bob did already "cheat" in his dissertation or you should accept that a paper (with that history) in JICCA with perhaps a few weaknesses in the presentation cannot be defined as Bob's Waterloo by far. Now please do the necessary and I'm sure that he will be game if you ask him the next questions. And be confirmed that I hold my breath for your first title in international tournaments. Not joking. Rolf Tueschen > > >>On September 04, 2002 at 04:22:55, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>Hi Roger, >>> >>>I am not taking side here but your post scares me a bit. >>> >>>Shouldnt we first look at content and then at presentation ? Vincents "bad >>>taste" does not change facts at all. >>>Nor do his motives. >>> >>>I can simply not understand nor follow the argumentation " Dr.Hyatt is a great >>>guy and therefore we may not critisize errors/bad science/carelesness/fraud >>>[select one] in his papers. >>> >>> >>>Kind regards, >>> >>>Georg v. Zimmermann >>> >> >>Excuse me. This is not sound! Although I don't know your age or education, I >>know that you don't get the point here. NB that if you are a real scientist then >>it's even worse. >> >>You are right and wrong. Of course content goes always over presentation. But >>then what is content here? NB that it's a difference if you write in internet >>NGs or if you publish articles (in ICCA Journal) or if you write your >>dissertation. I can't help but Vincent is talking to the person reduced to the >>first and second aspects. Of course he might have found certain errors in the >>presentation of the article. I found many occasions to discuss with Bob namely >>the OT topics. But Bob is still the one who was able to do some sound science, >>aspect three. NB that if that would not have been the case I would have never >>insisted so much in the OT topics. Thinking processes do interest me as such. >> >>How can you state the trivial when Vincent himself, unneccessarily, confused >>good observations with final proofs? Wouldn't you say that this is always evil? >>So, the verdict "lying, mass fraud, fakes" is no presentation, it's premature >>judgement! You do Vincent no good favor if you confuse things even more. >> >>Point is that Vincent in his situation has many difficulties to solve and >>explain and - with priority - understand. In my eyes he wrote a good report, IF >>he had left out the personal insults. Even his interpretations are not sound and >>sufficiently researched. Psychologically he's not to blame. He's in a mess and >>not a scientist (yet) himself. So, by force, he comes to false conclusions out >>of good observations! If he only had asked real scientists with enough >>experience in CC, because they would have helped him to avoid the premature >>stuff incl. insults. It'sso bad. If all what Vincent reported would be a) true >>and b) let only place for a single conclusion, then, but only then, Vincent's >>own conclusions would be _unneccessary_. BTW that is how science works in daily >>routine. There is no need to become aggressive if your points speak for >>yourself. But the other way round is also true. Internet is another medium of >>course. Vincent had certain doubts and open questions and decided to gamble. But >>he overlooked certain possibilities (of explanation). >> >>Personally I wished that Vincent might understand his faults, he's smart enough, >>and that he will be remembered here for his motivation and audacity and not for >>his mistakes as a beginner in science. I also wished that Bob would still >>cooperate. BTW I know that he will because his heart will always overcome his >>head. Fortunately. >> >>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.