Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:23:52 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 17:55:53, Bob Durrett wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 15:22:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> >>So you think it ok to let someone make _known_ false statements, so that those >>that know no better will take them at face value and run with them? >> >>I don't. > >I feel that it is highly desirable that ***everybody*** here challenge apparent >technical errors. That can only be very good for the general membership. > >But I see no moral imperative for it. Censorship of bulletins, just because >they seem to contain technical errors, would not be appropriate. Otherwise, the >non-Guru members would be afraid to publish their ideas here! > >Bob D. Bob D., the Second, you are wrong. With that little twist you change the topic completely. If we were talking about "technique" and technical errors, I wouldn't be able to discuss here, because I know nothing of the technique of computer chess. Let me give you two examples for the "errors" that we discuss here. 1.) Vincent claims: I (Elo 2250 or ICC Blitz 2400 etc) HAVE DONE the following: I crushed ALL the progs of the year 1997 in BLITZ. Now let's analyse: what performance had the progs in BLITZ in 1997??? Subvariation: what is BLITZ: worldwide BLITZ is 5 minute games The progs at least in ICC had a number of above 2600!!! Now Vincent said: he had crushed them. This is not a technical statement. It is simply a hoax. Bob, the First, simply challenged Vincent, to prove his statement. Vincent began to chicken out: BLITZ is 25 minutes and I was the Dutch champion for that variation UNDER 20 years old - so that was at 1993 or some such. VERDICT: That is a clear lie. Because in the Netherlands, like whole Europe, 25' is RAPID and NOT Blitz. And the messages here prove that Vincent knew that it was about 5'. Nowhere it is mentioned that BLITZ is 25'! So, Bob D., for you it is better to let people believe that a 2250 player could crush the progs in BLITZ in 1997? Because it's just a technical error??? I wouldn't subscribe to your theory. Excuse me. Your defense is weak and therefore rejected. 2.) The whole question of the speed of a 2-processor machine. Experiments resulted in a win of factor 1,7. Two well known experts had this result. Now comes Vincent and says, this isn't true. But he has no comparable experimental setting. ETC. I won't repeat the whole stuff. Please read in the archives. So, also this is NOT a technical question. Because Vincent challenged the two experts and more or less said that THEIR results couldn't be true. This isn't a petitesse or a little technical discrepancy. This is an experimental dispute. And Vincent simply hadn't the necessary equipment. Conclusion: This is not nice. To accuse someone that his results couldn't be true. From someone who has not the same equipment. And also here you would prefer that an expert like Bob Hyatt simply tolerates that Vincents claims that he had wrong results? Just because a discussion could cause the chicken out in the end of those who wrote the accusing messages??? Please make a clear statement for these two examples. Where do you see just technical errors not worth a thorough debate? Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen > ><snip>
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.