Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:22:28 10/15/02
On October 15, 2002 at 01:19:59, Mike S. wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 20:54:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>And what do you think about the >>justification he must find for the 1 million dollars prize money? >>Here you can see that he's just part of the PR campaign. > >You mean he has to care for that Fritz doesn't look too weak? I can't imagine >that... he's busy enough to care for himself against a very dangerous opponent. >Also, even if Fritz would look bad then and when, Kramnik is the last one to >blame. He has not to fear that Fritz looks bad, but that he looks bad (i.e., if >such a blunder would happen a seconde time, that's what he must fear). So let's agree to disagree. I can't get this into my mind why someone like you could even think that Kramnik could make such nonsense move (Qc4), but ok, to believe in my special theory is still another question. I have no difficulties to accept your standpoint of view - as such. > >>But as you know I see you in the >>same boat more or less working for CSS. You are not independant, or? I ask that >>because I can read elsewhere that journalists of CSS are not independant. > >I write for CSS more or less regularly, but not very much, as one of the regular >contributors (not employees; this might be a translation error :o). That can't >be called dependancy really. I also have kept my independent opinions and views. I've read some other opinion about the "possible" existence of independance in CSS (Computer, Schach & Spiele). But I would never doubt your own view. > >An example: I usually don't review major programs, but when the Fritz chess >server was created I participated in the beta test. Since I had written a small >article about ICC and other chess servers before (basics only), a was asked by >CSS to compare their features with the new Fritz server's features. Among some >positive new ideas, I found - as it was to expect (!) - the Fritz server being >somewhat behind ICC or Chess.Net with some features missing. That's what I wrote >with examples, and so it was also published. Then this looks perfectly ok. Know what, you must also see that such a business needs people like you so badly, because you are to me the only one with continual and elevated contributions in the CSS forum. And that from me who surely didn't always find consense with you. However the line where my respect ends is exactly when you show little interest when people - as it happened in my case - are openly defamed by the staff of the forum with the help of a few anonymous helpers. But perhaps I'm simply too experienced historically to give such habits a greater importance, speaking of civil courage in authoritative social groups. To be precisesly on the point: you treat human beings with care as long as they enjoy the general acceptance of the staff of CSS. The moment someone gets censored (to give just Quisinsky as a good example) then this guy is also dead and forgotten for you! There is only one conclusion possible: in real you are not interested in a person as such, as long as you could publish your (good!) articles. But I for one have learned that dictatorships could only be prevented by a sound education for possibly many citizans with 'civil courage'. Well, honestly, I could not find a single posting from you where you showed something of that quality. On the other hand I know that it's probably too difficult to explain to someone like you why it shouldn't be sufficient to simply write good articles! Below at the end of the posting I can give it another try because there I show you directly where the hole is in your attitude. > >Who of CSS asked me to write that, can you guess? It could perfectly be that DS did that, because I could see that he's wide open for good cooperation. FF is even better in that respect, so that is not the point. The point is for me, and here I think Thorsten C. has a good argument, the basic attitude of these people is anti-democratical. They don't like critics. They are completely split personalities when it comes to critics they can't estimate as nonsense or apparently false. Because then they don't reflect the whole topic again but try to exercise pure power - against their own conscience. I don't give quotes from private talkings, so unfortunately I can't give you the best explanations. (If you are an Austrian you could well compare it with your people's attitude to the political past. Austrians went almost hyterical when Hitler took your country by force and afterwards everyone pretended innocence and saw it as a German problem. - Let me come back to the event in Bahrain. Perhaps you can understand why I find it so naive to see Kramnik in a focus on his own play but not too much on the focus of the meaning of the whole event. Well, for me it's clear that you have a premature view in that respect. And such questions are surely not your favorits. - Let me make a little joke. You could well be DS yourself in that respect! :o) > >>As you could see in games 1-4 Fritz could take 1 to 2 points perhaps. But the >>points are less important than the quality of his play. And I think we saw what >>a stupid prog Fritz is. It's good for training of course and I like it. > >After seeing that Fritz seemingly can't harm Kramnik when queens are exchanged >early (something which could be said about Kasparov too probably :o), I did a >database statistic (comp-comp games only though) how an early queen exchange >influences the engine's score each. It turned out especially Junior 7's white >score drops then, from 58% to 25%. I couldn't acknowledge that yet with another >games collection, but the number of games wasn't small, 799. Tztztz. I like your analytical style. Well done. There you can see what A. Kure should better do instead of hanging around there for photo shootings... > >>(...) what was the result of Alterman against all the progs at the Maastricht >>Wch????? > >GM Alterman scored one win and 4 draws from eleven games of that clock simul, >IOW. 3,0/11. Some of his losses were on time. I think it was more an >entertainment event... I couldn't say if his, or the computer's performance was >good or bad under these unusual conditions. You see why questions are so important. I had stored that event the other way round. One loss, a few draws and the rest wins. Aha, I thought, and Junior was left out because that would have been a piece of cake... How could that happen? Just speaking to myself! :) > >Regards, >M.Scheidl > > >P.S.: > >>(Please read http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/11.html about >>Realitätsverlust.) > >(for once in german:) >Ich habe hineingeschaut. Vor allem, abgesehen vom Computerschach-Inhalt, finde >ich ehrlich keine gute Idee den Jakob-Fall als Beispiel heranzuziehen, >unabhängig davon ob er theoretisch geeignet wäre, beispielhaft Realitätsverlust >zu zeigen oder nicht. Das ist problematisch... einerseits ist so etwas zu ernst >um mit Erörterungen über Brettspielsoftware verbunden zu werden, andererseits >hat sich Computerschach das ja sicher nicht verdient, daß Ansichten darüber >anhand einer solchen Sache illustriert werden. Bei mir kam speziell das >unangenehm an. Oder der Computerschach-Abschnitt paßt nicht dazu. (Den Fall >Schön, oder Böhm (?), kenne ich nicht.) Vielen Dank für deinen mutigen Kommentar. Selten sowas direktes und offenes gelesen. Auch wenn ich dir gar nicht folgen kann inhaltlich. Denn du hast offensichtlich den eigentlichen Kern meiner Darstellung nicht verstehen können. Zugegeben, das war halt meine Arroganz, diese drei Kapitel einfach unter den Begriff zu stellen. Die einzelnen Beweise fehlen natürlich. Ich könnte dir jedoch zeigen, wie in jedem einzelnen Punkt der Realitätsverlust zu erkennen ist. Nun zu deiner generellen Kritik des Mißbrauchs eines fast zum Tabu stilisierten schrecklichen Schicksals im Falle des ermordeten Jungen und dem läppischen Thema, das uns im Hobby bewegt. Schau doch bitte genauer hin und sieh diesen Artikel in der Nachbarschaft, die auf meiner Homepage definiert wird. Dann siehst du, daß Computerschach sehr schnell relativiert wird. Mein Denken geschieht nicht im klitzekleinen Hobbybereich Computerschach, sondern von einer anderen Ebene aus. Vielleicht ist aber gerade das so gefährlich für Menschen, die ihre rollenhaften Betätigungen gefälligst schön getrennt verrichten. Du solltest z.B. mehr Chrilly D. lesen. Dann wird vielleicht manches klarer, was die Breite eines Betrachtungswinkels angeht. :) Ich hätte mich jedenfalls gefreut, wenn du persönlich den Mund aufgerissen hättest, als mich einige Strolche und ein paar verängstigte "Leiter" wie DS als "Schachfan" aus dem CSS Forum verjagt haben. Das war primitiv und schändlich, weil vor allem völlig grundlos. Genauso natürlich die anderen Fälle wie E.N. und besagter Q. - Heute ist das Forum eben zum reinen Techniker-Erklär-Laden verkommen, ohne jegliche theoretische Relevanz und Leben. Die Ankündigung, auf dem Server ein Turnier für Operatoren auszurichten, hat schon fast revolutionären Charakter! Das Ausprobieren eines neuen "Stils" ist Kreativität! Eine neue Teststellung wird gleich in einem ökumenischen Gottesdienst gefeiert! :) On the contrary what a freedom and what a life is existing here in CCC! 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.