Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:51:10 09/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2002 at 17:16:04, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On September 15, 2002 at 15:27:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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? > >Chubze?? :) for someone with such a scientiffic approach you sure do take things >personally, this is the reason why i asked if your "obsession" (don't take that >too literally) with finding mistakes was based on some past unfinished >business... Let me make it clear here what is wrong between us. You are far away here from my usage of such terms. You seem to have a problem with my claim of scientist. Thosten the same. But it is because you can't understand how I mean it. There is no business, no past business, nothing. Of course you know the persons after a while. But be confirmed that only the actual topic is deciding. And not the past. I'm not the stalker Thorsten is. Just read Chessfun for that detail. Thorsten has problems with many. Me included. But I have no problem with him, nor with you. Then. Of course you have the right to call it obsession if someone is doing it for a while. But in that term lies the insult already. Also in your wording 'carried away'. It's interesting and wrong that you, I read 26, try to be my survisor. Only if you want to do it, you should at least choose the right moment. Here it was the wrong moment. Already in July I contacted Thorsten with post nr. 5. He reacted in a strange manner. And I gave the other four examples from a sample of perhaps only 30 games in total. Then you want to teach me about levels. Also interesting. Since I always make that point. And you are trying to teach me that it could be important for me to take care of... <ggg> You know what, I'm not taking anything personal here and still I have a strong motivation. I'm always trying to explain as good as I can what I mean. It's very difficult in English. And if you for instance suddenly appear after Thorsten had insulted me and formerly others and begin to talk about science and obsession and stuff like that, I know what this means. Because you are not arguing on topic but you want to create confusion. How does it look? It's already a mistake for having answered you. Because you have no point. No argument. If I ask you above how you could address me although Thorsten did present bad data [I gave you 5 examples, games], you answer with the reflection that I reacted as if I had an obsession[I'm happy that I didn't post *6* bad games, because that might have motivated you to go into even higher spheres], and that when I pretended to have a scientific approach. I think here you showed us what your motivation is. Confusion maker, nothing else. Yes, I take your insinuations as insults. But not _personal_. I think that you shouldn't do it here in CCC. It is against the charta. But you could also continue. Only without me. It's a good thing to know that personal insults are forbidden here in CCC and therefore please stop it. > >And BTW i am not trying to "teach" you, i like yourself, just claim the right to >quote "help people to understand the difference between disaster and good data." >just with a more human approach you might say. > >> >>>>> 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. > >LOL! i asked "I don't see how it is biased?" and that is what you came up with, >would care to elaborate on my original question as to where it was biased?? I meant something different. Good to see you in such a good state. BTW did you ever think about your innocence or ignorance could never be a proof for the inexistence of some truth? So, sometimes it's not enough to simply say, I can't see it. This is your problem then. I only told you because you were in such a good state. > >> >>> >>>>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... > >A lot of "if's" and "but's" for someone who want's scientiffic proof ;) I forgive you your ignorance. Ask people in Thorsten's forum, what they think about my precision. But usually such things are deleted by the forum makers. Although I had the information from a forum maker himself! And then he demanded that Thorsten should delete it. Funny. Isn't it? So, please do not hold me responsible when I adapted to the possibilities in public. > >> >>> >>>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. > >I don't know wether he is affraid of satire or sarcasm so i connot make any >assumptions. LOL. This time I must laugh. Because this is not a question, where you must know Thorsten himself. It is a scientifical question. LOL. > >> >> >>> >>>>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. > >And who is to be the judge of what is concidered significant proof? Who? Wrong question. It is the system of stats. _Everybody_ could show it when Ed made a few terrible mistakes. It's not only about numbers. It's also the experimental setting. Decades ago Ed deleted double games when he lost. That is such a bias then. > >> >>>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? > >What you chose to do is your business, i believe in the freedom of speech and >free will. Ok, I take it from your mouth. But look, Thorsten in May also wrote me that he would never censor something like all the others. I could write what I wanted. And today he explained here in CCC why and how he would censor=delete. Consistency is a very difficult lesson to learn. Too difficult for some. But I agree, it's good to have free speech, so that erveryone could out himself about his internal contradictions. :) > >When i said it was his estimate (and clearly you got this wrong) i meant that >regardless of the data presented, it is his estimate if it was an improvement or >not so morale est no need to take it personally. Hey, please keep in mind what I said. Thorsten can estimate what he wants. He's a good estimator BTW. But he should not send us such nonsense data. Or at least he should give a few comments. He didn't do that although I asked him. So I gave the examples. Nothing less nothing more. It wasn't personally. It was simply a correction. Nothing bad, no? > >> >> >>> >>>>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. > >If it is so trivial, then why do you fail to take it into cocideration when >criticizing his testing methods? LOL I didn't fail, how can you say that. All I did was presenting the bad data, which meant nothing at all. And Thorsten agreed! Now what didn't I consider? :) > >>> >>>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. > >You almost get a cookie for this one (and a slap on the wrist for putting words >in my mouth) if you rephrase it to: "no matter how deeply wrong _YOU_ think >Thorsten is with his games... Pardon me. He is objectively wrong with the five examples. Not personal, personally, not obsessively. No, simply damned wrong. :) >Again you seem to get off on the personal stuff here, if you have personal >problems with Thorsten or his behaviour towards other posters, then take it up >with him or the moderators. I go on the personal stuff? I thought you were the one oversensitively concerned about the "personal". > >"And in the meantime you are trying to bite everyone who dares to speak of >science?" i have nothing against science, it is just that too much of it makes >you sound like a robot, and granted this is a computer chess forum, but that is >taking it too far :) You should have known Einstein. Good, he's dead now, but why not take me for a change. Am I causing you real furor? I can't believe it. > >> >> >>> >>>>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? >>:) > >Actually it is my turn to point out the lack of scientiffic proof here, what did >you expect me to reply here? i have absolutely no idea if anyone sent anyone >e-mails or what the content might have been, unless you have proof i will write >it off as a vivid imagination on your part. You are not from this world here, CCC. Ed wrote it yesterday or on Friday. :) And Thorsten came running and commented that another Richard Kimble were hiding... Yes, those were the days last week. And where were you? > >> >>>As a scientist you must be familiar with success and faliure rates based on >>>positive and negative exposure... >> >>Please do not exaggerate. > >How is that an exaggeration? (and please don't answer with a question) Excuse me but this is now becomming too personal, no? <rofl> > >>> >>>>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> > >You gossip a lot, i am talking to you and i don't care about who said what to >who. I see. What would you say if I didn't believe you? My main objection against you is the point that the whole topic here is not your business. You seem as if someone did engage you, if you know what I mean. :) > >> >>> >>>>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! >> >>:) > >LOL, first of all i am not on your shoulders, second i don't see things as black >and white as you, i don't dump anyone just because i am having an argument with >them. >And the only ear i want to bite it the ear of my girlfriend. Yiou see. Another insult from your side. I'm not taking things black or white. But logic tells us that mistakes are mistakes. And I published them. For some strange reasons you thought it should be smart to intervene. Instead you should have biten your girl-friend, I agree. Hope she's in good shape so far. But that is another chapter. > >> >>> >>>>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. > >Well that is what i have been doing, in the last few posts, including this one >:) and from the looks of it, you don't seem as comfortable with it as you >express in the above line. Zeitnot. I must bite my rabbit. Take care Rolf Tueschen > >> >>> >>>>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. > >Not quite sure what you mean with that.. > >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.