Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:27:48 09/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2002 at 14:09:52, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On September 15, 2002 at 13:39:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 15, 2002 at 13:03:14, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>Rolf you are getting a bit carried away here, That was you who made this proposition. Now I showed you that were wrong and you're still trying to teach me? Looks strange in my eyes. I not getting a bit away, but you are on the scene defending someone who insultied me here in CCC without a reaction by the moderation. That is offensive. Not that it would make big wounds but it's still astonishing with how much chuzbe you are presenting your opinions. That someone presented bad data is of not so much interest for you? But to criticise the one being insulted, that is making sense? >>> if shredder or it's book makes a >>>bad move you should not blame thorsten for it, the only thing you could argue >>>here is the validity of publishing such a game in terms of accuracy. >>> >>>BTW i have read your posts for a while now and it seems you are looking for >>>mistakes no matter who posts, do you have some past issues that was left >>>unfinished? >>> >>>Regards >>>Jonas >> >>I see that your question has a bad bias but I will try to answer your question - >>although it's totally off topic of course. But I will put it in the right >>context. Hope this helps. > >I don't see how it is biased? I think that I cannot force you to see it. But this question is not an argument against the existing bias. > >>To give you a general answer, we should leave this specific thread here. And >>it's good to do it because what I do has nothing to do with Thorsten in >>particular but with what you observed very correctly. >> >>You write that I'm looking for 'mistakes' no matter who posts. So that is almost >>the truth. And I am thankful that you noticed that I did not go for particular >>posters. Because I never do that. But what is my interest then? >> >>You detected it but wrote it down in a bit biased fashion. >> >>I'm not looking for 'mistakes' others make. I had too much to do and in the end >>I had to correct myself too often! :) >> >>When you use the term mistake you are close to mean nitpicking and not far away, >>but of course not near too, the idea of Thorsten that I threw "mud" ans nothing >>else. This is both completely wrong. >> >>Perhaps I can explain you my intentions with concrete examples. >> >>Thorsten is now making propaganda about a new Macheide style for Rebel and he's >>doing it for months now. You know I am interested how Thorsten could achieve to >>put LASKER (!), the great Wch of human chess, into Rebel! And making Rebel >>stronger this way. > >Propaganda might be a strong word here, as far as i know he is not making any >money on developing his new styles... Perhaps that could change. But in any case, would that change one yota of the case? So, if money is involved then you would change sides? But how about the following. Marcus Kästner from CBits came into Thorsten's forum and had the idea to offer Thorstens style to the consumers of CBits. Not that big money were involved... > >And if he want's to put Lasker into rebel then so be it (provided he asks Lasker >first) :) What are your intentions? First you criticise me and defend Thorsten, here again you defend Thorsten, and you completely oversee that he's insulting all the time. To all those who don't accept immediately his opinions and presentation. Are you sure that you are doing the right job? Also with such sophistication and jokes. Didn't you know that Thorsten is afraid of satires and sarcasm? Guess why. > >>Now I could believe Thorstens games and record, and also Ed's record. Then >>version 51 would be proven stronger. Period. > >Nobody can _prove_ anything from a personal match or matches (unless they of >course have 100's of computers to test with and even then...) and i don't think >that Thorsten is trying to prove anything, however i am certain the he believes >that his efforts are improving on the default Rebel, and apparantly Ed seems to >think that too. You should read a little bit deeper. I wasn't talking of proof in a general meaning. It was meant as you could read as proof with such statistical data. So significant proof. >So when Thorsten says that the new style is stronger, it is up to you and me for >that matter to understand that it is an estimate....his estimate. May I ask you a question? What are you talking about? Did you think that anybody here didn't know this? Of course it's estimating. And if true then for the best of it. But not true because of the data he gave us. Know what I mean? And all I did was to explain why his data is bad. But nevertheless he could be right with his estimate. Yes. And so what? Do you want to tell me that I should shut up when Thorsten is presenting in a big silence? > >>That I could only check if I entered the autoplayer tests myself. But no one >>will ever get me into such things. I have my own reservation for the statistical >>activities in CC. You know perhaps my preference for the apples and beans motif. > >Science is good, but only to a certain point, subjectively observing the >progress of any experiment will give you valuable unscientiffic information that >you can use to scientifficly reach your goal sooner. What are you talking here? May I inform you that subjective observation has a meaning in science? Please do not teach me from such a biased angle. It's very offensive and it's pretending that I wrote something against such trivial truths. > >And no i am not familiar with your apples and beans motif, please spill the >beans, no pun intended. > >>And I had a second method to take a closer look into the tests and tunings. >>I take a look into the games itself! >> >>And now I gave you a first impression. Almost every win with Black in Thorstens >>data Macheide Rebel wins against Shredder on P 400 because of Shredders book! As >>a scientist I know that the results can't prove that the tuning of Thorsten had >>this effect! I know that these wins mean nothing at all. And Thorsten has just >>confirmed that he has the same opinion!! > >Maybe you need to tune your scientiffic values to a point where you can relax >and enjoy the _human_ effort Thorsten is making here, although from a >scientiffic view we can't know for sure when your settings are quite right, >might take years to test ;) I understand better now what you are saying. You say, no matter how deeply wrong Thorsten is with his games, he's a good guy, sorry, a good member of CCC, especially with his insults against Chessfun, martin f. and me, that he can do what he wants, he has your support? And in the meantime you are trying to bite everyone who dares to speak of science? Not a consistent argument in my view. > >>I made that point and nothing else. > >And you made it a couple of times, but do you see anything positive in what >Thorsten is doing? No! :) He's keeping good old Ed in tension (read how Ed is already running and hiding because of the many emails of Thorsten) and perhaps prevents him from leaving CC. What do you know about old-aged seniors, huh? :) >As a scientist you must be familiar with success and faliure rates based on >positive and negative exposure... Please do not exaggerate. > >>Now the next question could be why Thorsten is presenting data with no meaning >>for his main intention. And more, when he knows it himself! > >The why is easy (if you fine read his posts) he feels that it is his duty (not >sure if that is the right word here) to present _all_ the material gathered from >his experiment in order to keep it scientiffic. Maybe. But it's already clear by now, that Thorsten does not even know what is all of importance for such a big presentation. That was Martin's point or better question and immediately he was insulted. The term 'nonsense' is always the first on Thorstens lips in such difficult situations when he's asked questions. After 'nonsense' on second place his classic "You are ill" and then all the advices about new medicamentations. <sarcasm mode was on> > >>Perhaps you can better understand me by now. Perhaps it would be much easier for >>you to understand me if you had my experience in science. Because there you >>should make sure that your new data should mean a thing! But in a hobby I would >>agree that it's not such great disaster. > >Well would you call it anything than a hobby? You have great stamina, I must admit. Yes and no. Yes, this is a hobby here for all of us. No, because a minimum of logical reasoning and also scientific basics should be respected. Why dumping the ones who could give a few hints? This is your biggest problem. You cannot justify why you are sitting on my shoulders. You want to bite me in my ear? You Count Dracul have cost me precious time this Sunday! :) > >>I confess that it's interesting to help people to understand the difference >>between disaster and good data. That's all. > >As long as you willing to be subjected to the same scrutiny. Go ahead, of course I do. > >>Don't let your Sunday being darkened by such worries. :) > >Oh i opened a whole can of worms when i wrote about positive thinking in CTF, i >even got an award in fuzzy thinking :)) so don't worry about my level of >positivity. Good to know that I'm now such a favorite for you. Take care Rolf Tueschen > >Regards >Jonas
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.