Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:34:29 09/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2002 at 15:29:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 05, 2002 at 14:24:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >> >>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. Here, Bob, unintentionally I used wording that you then took for a comment on your actual specification. Only after re-reading your final paragraphe below I realised how you could have misunderstood. I was already talking again about your role and postings as such. Not the actual topic. I tried to make general conclusions. Logical explanations is the wrong term. I meant explanations about logic! For the not so experienced readers. Let me make a joke about your mentioning of the influences of old age. I don't think that your head is already involved, one's head is most of the time involved after one's body. But with the age the understanding grows that it's not so bad to admit some mistakes. And that not every detail must be a question of life or death. That might give you the impression of the increasing frequency of errors. :) As to Vincent, he might have the same insight in about twenty years, if he's still here. Then he will face himself some new talent... But this is another story. Each generation has the right to make its own faults. In real they are always the same. Rolf Tueschen >> >>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.