Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:29:00 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 14:24:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Super answer, you're really a very patient teacher now. As to the "dual" it >wasn't a typo for a change. I was exactly speaking of your "duel", which I think >gives a good description of at least Vincent's mood. Rats. OK... the term duel is used so often here instead of the correct "dual" that I "projected" and took the other meaning. :) Sorry... > Almost a question of >honour. You seem to interprete his style as almost a character deficiency. I believe he is being _intentionally_ dishonest. Why? For example, he has quoted the test run by Gian-Carlo with the 2.8 speedup he got, and said that I use only one position for my 3.1 numbers. He _knows_ that I ran the same test and got 3.0, because I sent both of them the log files for both the 1cpu and 4 cpu tests, and I have an email that clearly shows it. Since he has both, but accuses me of not using "suites", yet he _knows_ I sent him a suite run, is that not _intentionally_ dishonest? Or, to use his word, is that not simply _lying_??? I can provide the email with the log-file attachments to show when it was sent to both him and GCP to show that he can't say "but I didn't have that email when I wrote what I wrote." He had that email a couple of weeks back or more. I call that dishonesty in the extreme sense of the word. I originally told him the timing data came from the logs. I was certainly partially right, in that it was reconstructed from speedups which did come from the logs. And as soon as this was pointed out, I immediately corrected myself. Have you seen Vincent correct any of _his_ false statements here? Not a one. Just more hand-waving and subject-changing and other typical nonsense one does when backed into a corner with no way out but "I was wrong." >Please, don't do that. I would like to see the actual temper still as a result >of his frustration. But then he must talk with the guys from Paderborn who never >had Vincent's success although they had a "Kong" like computer. It's because >Vincent is lacking the usually trained respect in universities he's taking it >from the more sports side. He searched for someone responsible for his mess. If >he only could have known that he hadn't a fair chance to succeed in the first >attempt, the deception would be less great, on the other side perhaps he >wouldn't have worked so hard if he had known all this before. > >If I were you I would always prefer his fire than someone similar to a sleeping >pill. You're now on making little jokes and I think after some time you will >surely help him again, at least I would like to see it. Perhaps the whole thing >came by some social reinforcement, because Gian-Carlo had surely almost the same >conclusions, only with less odd remarks. Please give these young men the benefit >of their right to err. GCP has not, in my opinion, done anything particularly distasteful with respect to me. He agreed that the data looked wrong. I explained why. He still doesn't like the way it was done which is not a problem to me. Vincent took a different angle. "fraud". "liar". "etc". But he did it for immoral reasons, namely to try to make himself look a little better to get a better machine for the WCCC event. You should ask Cray what I told them when I convinced them to support Cray Blitz with Chess 4.X and Belle at the top of the heap. I didn't promise them anything but that I would do my best to make their hardware look as good as I could, and if we won, they would get credit for the hardware, but if I lost, I would take the credit for simply not being "good enough." I didn't knock the chess 4.x guys. I simply set out to beat them. And eventually I did. But I did it in the right way. By hard work rather than loud mouthing... > >As you could see in my case, this was clear right from the beginning. They >simply couldn't have your experience, and even me as complete beginner in CC but >with other experiences I saw immediately that all that what they had accused you >for couldn't simply be the case. I would not go that far. I _could_ have made it all up. And if I had, it would be _very_ difficult to prove it 10 years after the hardware has all but disappeared. So challenging things is absolutely not a bad thing to do. But there are right ways and wrong ways. I am reminded of the lambasting Berliner gave to Botvinnik in the JICCA. And I blasted hime for doing it. Even though I eventually agreed with his conclusions. But the general rule is "praise in public, chastise or question in private" and the correct approach would have been to have asked specific questions that could have resolved all of this before it became an attempt at a public lynching of yours truly. He could have asked. But he didn't. He made a few very cagey statements and asked a few questions without any proper context to let me know what he was trying to understand. And then he decided to "go public". Inappropriate is not strong enough. I would not have minded even a public question about the data. That would have triggered the memory of either me or one of my partners in the CB stuff to remember what happened and explain the events. Whether that would eliminate the questions about the time/node data or not is another issue, but that would be the _right_ way to handle it. Not "fraud". "liar". Particularly when it is _easy_ to prove that both of those fit him at _least_ as well as they fit what I did... > >I find it a bright demonstration of serenity how you dealt after the first >shock. I think you admit that such errors often give more chances for didactic >success than a silent community. Honestly said, I wished that many more here >would dare to bring forward their very personal results of thinking. Therefore >we should care that Vincent is not treated as the absolute idiot now. He made >mistakes he couldn't omit with his CC knowledge or chess alone but only with the >education in a science. Perhaps this is another task for you when you answer >questions. You already introduce many historical stuff, but also important are >some _logical_ explanations. > >Rolf Tueschen I have always made mistakes. I suspect that I will make _more_ in the future as I get older. I don't consider this particular problem very significant at all, for reasons I have already stated too many times. But yes, it was a problem. Whether we even mentioned the reconstruction or not I don't know because I don't have any of the original versions of the paper, all I have is the final copy that was scanned by me from the JICCA a couple of years back. Therefore, I have to use some of the dreaded "I don't remember" stuff because, unfortunately, _that_ _is_ _the_ _truth_. Not that I won't remember more in the future, who knows. But at the moment, you know everything about the circumstances that I can recall.. Lots of bits and pieces from losing files in 1996 to running tests in 1993 to who-knows-what. The only thing I care to mention is that the raw data for speedups was, and is, correct. And that was the data I took so much time to produce...
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.