Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:05:49 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 12:46:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 11:30:29, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>Rolf Tüschen claims that i cheated when playing autoplayer games. >>In fact he says that the openings have been chosen or selected, and that >>i maybe preselected special games. >> >>This is a personal insult. >> > >Wait a minute. Shall I get the personal insults you wrote to me? The last ones >here again to these threads? Being ill, needing doctor and such nonsense? > >It's better than a satire what you are doing here. > >NB I didn't say that you cheated. I said that you were a creative tuner. And >then what I said next, that was the following. I showed clearly that your >roughly 30 games you reported - attention - _do not prove_ what they apparently >shouldm that Rebel Macheide were stronger than Fritz or Shredder. Period. I personally don't like _any_ of this thread. Why? Because it is _impossible_ to prove a negative. IE it is very difficult to prove that someone _did_ cheat or manipulate results. It is impossible for them to prove they did not. And as a result, all that is going to happen is that tempers are going to flare, debate is going to heat up, and this will erupt into a full-blown nuclear explosion. My advice to _everybody_. Take results with a grain of salt, knowing that another event will probably produce a different result. Program A being better than program B is _not_ an absolute thing, ever. The "weaker" program can win three in a row without any outside "help". What's the point in doing the finger-pointing here? If you don't like or don't trust Thorsten's results, ignore them and use the ones you do like and/or trust. It certainly makes the moderators' jobs easier... > >And now folks: Thorsten agreed with me on the judgement. He said that the game >didn't prove anything. If you want to _prove_ something, chess is probably the wrong venue for doing so... > >So far so good. > >But then my examples (I wrote about 5 games! out of 30) showed that Thorsten did >not present his whole data but a pre-selected sample. For instance with 3 wins >of Macheide Rebel against Shredder with the same opening blunder book line. > >Now all I am saying is that this doesn't prove that the style Macheide is >anything because it can't prove it. Because Shredder was lost out of the >opening. And not due to the play of anyone as opponent. > >So, I asked questions, this is what I did. I asked Thorsten how he could present >such data. But he never replied with content. He preferred to fake a medical >expert instead. > >Then yesterday Ed came and tried to defend his "tester". He wrote that everyone >could pre-arrange data. SSDF and all. > >Then I showed that this wasn't possible because people would discover it. > >So far so good. > >Then "AB" explained to me that Thorsten is doing operator/program testings. > >Didn't interest me because we must see what Thorsten's intentions are. If he >wants to find a style, then this is not testing and he can do what he wants. > >But then Thorsten is claiming now that he had posted data from tests and I had >no right to criticise him for pre-arranging the data or wahtever. > >This goes too far now. > >It's one thing to insult "bean-counters" (that is the majority of all testers in >CC) and to pretend to be a creative researcher/"tester" and then to claim that >the chosen very small sample of data (NB that Thorsten tested from May 2002 >until now Sept 2002 and all he had to show were 30 games!!!) should have the >same respect as the many data from the other normal testers. This is impostering >square *3. > >If I had to make my choice I would take all the "insulted as beancounter's >results" data in the world before I would believe that the 30 games from >Thorsten gave a complete overview of Thorsten's practice with Macheide. > >But that is so trivial that Thorsten shoud be able to understand it. > >The point of critic is not that Thorsten is doing things different to the normal >testers, the point is, that Thorsten doesn't show his data and he doesn't >explain either. All what he's trying to do is claiming that the thirty games >proved that Macheide was stronger than the default Rebel. > >And all I did was to prove that Thorsten couldn't succeed with such unsound >data. > >Thorsten tried a final trick. He asked me if I wanted that he should post not >the data he had but data which I would find better, without these strange >contents. > >No, I can only reply this, Thorsten should learn to present data without bias. >When he does autoplay then he should post these games. And not only 30 games >from May until September 2002 and for Shredder three lost games with the >identical opening book blunder! > >I take for granted that all here in CCC have seen Thorsten's cabinet with the >minimum of theree computers. So Thorsten had enough hardware to play many games >in 4 months. Many more than roughly 30! > >What is insulting that is (besides Thorsten's own insulting of many here in CCC) >his insinuation that the so-called beancounters did present useless data and >that he could do it better. But the truth is that nobody knows what Thorsten is >really doing, or what exactly he is presenting and what not. > >But then it's a hundred times better to have the other's data, where everybody >can see what is game one in what match and of how many games. > >If SSDF presented such data Thorsten provided here, Thorsten would run amok. But >since he's something better than just a bean-counter, he has the right to do >what he wants. That is what he's saying. > >When people like me try to differentiate and reflect and ask questions, he comes >and insults again because that is not computerchess in his eyes. God! May CC be >protected against Thorsten, the better than mere bean-counter, who does nothing >a all that could be analysed. And who runs into his insult-mode when someone >tries to judge his practice. > >I close with this summary. Thorsten has all the right to do tunings the way he >wants. But he can't force people to take his little data sample as if it were >the usual data the defamed "beancounters" present. That would be the >impossibility. The squaring of the circle as we say it in German. > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.