Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 15:58:02 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2002 at 17:36:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 11, 2002 at 09:02:32, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On September 11, 2002 at 07:51:07, Uri Blass wrote: >> > >[...] > >>>Hope for peace >>> >>>Uri >> >>Well, Thorsten achieved something remarkable tuning the Rebel parameters, both >>his versions perform significant better than the default setting. So far I have, >> >>TC-051 : 51-35 59.2% (+55 elo) >>TC-056 : 43-34 55.8% (+30 elo) >> >>Both matches are still in progress but I think the pattern is set. >> >>Well done Thorsten. >> >>Ed >Without the exact data, the games, this remains an open question, Ed. Only the >games can speak. The scores alone don't mean the same. The questions of the >readers here are justified. The matches are still running, so I can not present games yet. I mainly posted this to show that Thorsten wasn't talking nonsense, if he would I would say it too. Ed >Let me give an example from science. I think it was the Nobel prize laureate >Monod from France who was involved with a terrible error in his laboratories. >Hewas guilty of not having controlled good enough the work of his team members. >What has happened? Well, the error was odd. His assistants had to count certain >items, their frequency in certain solutions. As it could be proven some >assistants counted the items almost always in wrongly enlarged format. How could >this happen if the field with the items was very bright and therefore to be >examined without difficulties? The answer shows a typical case in science, and >therefore certain caution was invented. I remind you of the typically >double-blind experimental setting of medical tests. That means that not only the >clients know what they are given, but also the experimentor himself doesn't know >what he's administering. Meaning placebo or not, medicament X or Y etc. >Look, if these well educated and experienced scientists must respect a basic >caution, it is very telling when Thorsten is simply believing that he has >anything under control. If it were so easy, and if people could control their >unconscious (!) preferences and intentions, we didn't need methods such as the >double blind. It is simply a fact, that we can't control us, no matter how >honest or educated we are. It is simply a human trait, that we are trying to >support our own wishful thinking. So it's not a big surprise if Thorsten, or >anyone else, gets the results he is working for. We could examine his results if >we had the exact data. And also the complete data. Here Thorsten is taking >refuge in making excuses. Perhaps the most complicated excuse is "his" >creativity vs the mere "beancounting" of the uninspired... Here he becomes to >resemble religious sect members. Simply because even if he is 100% right, we >must have the data, the complete data, otherwise his results mean almost >nothing. Not because people believe that Thorsten cheated or something, but >simply because he himself is no longer able to differentiate objective and >subjective. We know this, because everyone would be in the same difficulty if we >experimented like Thorstenin our own kitchen or lab. Therefore the necessary >control. > >(NB that the naivity of Thorsten is no proof for his unbalanced results. As I >said these processes are working unconsciously. And nobody has control of theses >processes, noprofessor and no Thorsten. I say that because some people will >surely take my report as insultive to Thorsten which is not the case.) > >Of course we all could lean back and say "well, let's wait until Ed will publish >the so-called Thorsten version", but then it will be a disadvantage for you and >not only for Thorsten. Or you must have more data than the rest of us. But then >Thorsten's posts were not ok. > >What comes to mind is this. With exception of the tournament that was on your >webpage, Thorsten's tournaments always had CSTal in the leading ranks although >CSTal was weaker than the truely leading progs. And likewise FRITZ always was in >the middle of the ranking lists. This no surprise. It was a correct mirror of >Thorsten's belief. FRITZ was always the dumb beancounter and CSTal the ingenious >combinatory player. Strange that all others had FRITZ on the top and CSTal down >below. Much stuff to think about I think. > >The next topic could be that _new_ versions of progs can always be tuned >successfully against old progs. Doesn't prove much. Because the other way round >it works the same way. It's a consequence of the weaknesses of today's progs. >Either engine or book, or learning mode. Therefore BTW the justified question of >Chessfun. Thorsten played many first games. Also here Thorsten gives a strange >reply. He says that FRITZ itself is guilty. But that is something a tester >shouldn't say. Doesn't look neutral such expression. > >I think we could find many more arguments, but the given might already convince >you that the _complete_ data is very important. And the knowledge of the control >mechanisms Thorsten had implemented. > >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.