Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:34:23 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 12:40:58, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 12:05:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 15, 2003 at 11:42:59, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2003 at 02:36:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2003 at 00:38:17, George Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>>Wow he beats the Micro's anytime he wants to! Once even played 5 computer >>>>>simultaneously and won all five game and was blindfolded!!! >>>> >>>>Where is the content here, or are you just smashing Vincent? >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>It's inappropriate IMO. I also felt this way about: >>> >>>http://Daft:zmeup@www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?277105 >>> >>>While disguised as OT, clearly its intent was to embarass Vince. >>> >>> >> >>It's intent was _not_ to embarass anyone. It was intended to verify >>a specific claim made by vincent. It certainly is related to computer >>chess since Crafty is a computer chess program. Vincent made the claim >>here more than once and I challenged him on it. If it isn't on topic, >>then none of the GM vs computer matches have been "on topic" either, nor >>has discussing similar things... >> >>If vincent is "embarassed" he has only himself to blame. _he_ made the >>ridiculous claim... I just challenged him on it since it is one of the >>few times where an outrageous claim by him can be directly proven false >>by simply playing some games on a chess server. > > >If the claim was "ridiculous" as you say, then there was no good reason for your >"challenge." You would have done better by just ignoring it and letting it die a >quiet death. > >I think pretending you don't have an axe to grind with Vince will be convincing >to very few here. Ricardo, you might be a great computerchess expert and I'm not, but here in the actual discussion you simply miss the main point. Excuse me, that is simply a fact. Let me try to explain. First of all, I think that a few here show Vincent, that they like him above all his faults - this is a good thing and very sympathetic. But the fault of all you who think they should defend Vincent is simply, that it brings you into opposition with science and logic. What do you expect here, that hundreds of readers, certainly a silent majority, should read without contradiction what Vincent had to say about whatever? How could laymen decide when Vincent is wrong and when he's right? Or do you want to state that he is always wrong so that it doesn't matter? - I for one think that Bob, as academic and 2x World Champion, gives us a good service if he criticises and corrects when someone talks nonsense. In my eyes it's dishonest to turn the flame agaist Bob, as if he just wanted to have a personal satisfaction. Did you ever reflect about the stress factor in teachers because their students are lazy and wrong all the time? - I agree with you and I've already tried to explain to Bob, that Vincent's problem is not solvable with simply giving good corrections. If that would help him, he wouldn't try to repeat over and over again a similar nonsense. So the frightening point is why such a non-lerning human could be such a good chess programmer at the same time. Or is he not as good as Bob? Comparing the uncomparable Cray Blitz with Diep? It frightens me that someone could be so good,also in chess, and still pretending and proposing so much nonsense. Not alone that. Doing it with such an arrogance - ALTHOUGH it is wrong, basically false and refutated since long. Someone said that Vincent couldn't listen; do you want to state that it could be smart to let it uncommented to the readers? Can't you see that for a teacher at least this is almost impossible? And I would add that this is good so? So that is exactly the answer to your - uh - so clever uppercut, that if it were nonsense, then why the hell making such a fuss about it... Well, exactly because it's so depressing for a scientist to let such nonsense stand in a group with also young and lay readers. I bet with you that if this here would be an exclusively academic circle, Bob would exactly do the opposite. Never he would correct Vincent for the like nonsense. Why? Because Vincent wouldn't be taken for serious after such mistakes. Everbody would ignore him. But here it looks as if Vincent could say afterwards to his friends, you've seen how I talked to Hyatt? You saw how he reacted etc. blabla. But this is completely ignoring the real base of a scientist who tries to correct some nonsense. Look, we don't have here an anarchistic forum, where everything goes. Even 2x2=5. Many here do not understand what it is all about with science. They say: Go away with your science, show me your example and I will tell you directly what it is. Ricardo, as if scientists were impotent do do so!!! The point is that it would be not so good for science in general, if everybody would simply say what he thinks after a few seconds. Science needs no clair-voyants. Science is a field where people have found certain practical rules to follow. People who are intelligent and experienced. It simply makes no sense to behave as if you could reach the same goals without science and its rules. If the secret method existed you can be sure that humanity had adopted it since long. - You like some few others seem to want that here in computerchess the scientific truth should divide it's importance with all kinds of nonsense. For all if that nonsense is coming from some good friends of yours. I for one think that this is inacceptable. But I don't think that therefore the corrections do humiliate the person whose opinions were corrected. Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen > > >> >> >> >> >> >>>Certainly, Vince seems to have invited this sort of thing upon himself with >>>questionable posts of his own, but I don't think that means everybody is thereby >>>entitled to likewise to Vince. I don't like the idea of the lowest common >>>denominator setting the standard of behavior for everyone else. I think instead >>>the moderators should have step in much earlier with this sort of thing and all >>>this could have been headed off. >>> >>>I'm glad you spoke up about this. I was waivering about complaining to the >>>moderators, because I assumed the complaint would be rejected and all this >>>misspent energy would go on in any case. >> >>I can't speak for the other moderators. They do their own analysis. However, >>this is just as much "on topic" as all the "Nemeth beat fritz" discussions >>except that this is a much easier claim to bust...
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.