Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:30:51 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 18:36:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 18:03:12, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On January 15, 2003 at 14:50:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2003 at 11:09:43, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2003 at 10:14:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Sorry, but this is rather insulting to Bob if you put Vincent on his level. >>>>>Unfortunately you cloud the the whole question. In this case it's solely about >>>>>science and logic. Now you judge that they both violate the basics. Does science >>>>>and also logic have no meaning to you, no special value? I can't see where you >>>>>discovered the "weak" point in Bob here. >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>>Did science and logic produce a chess engine? >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>Bob the Second, what would you think "what" did it? Just human "will"? Methinks >>>you are confusing it with the question if someone should have studied computer >>>sciences to be able to program a World Champion. That of course is nonsense. I >>>think that Frans is no academic and neither Richard was. But that doesn't >>>matter. The basics of computer chess have been found by academics. And not too >>>low estimated academics. Another question is if you could well use logic and a >>>technique that was created by academics, even if you were no academic. Well, >>>also this question is moote. Of course you can. But - and that is a single >>>caveat: if you talk like V., and when it's wrong, you might accept that some >>>expert gives you a correction. What is wrong with that? >>> >>>Kind regards, >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>Well, I enjoy the fruits of the labors of others. Things like electricity and >>chess engines, for example. But my gut feel is that it is going too far to >>start worshiping science and logic. As far as logic is concerned, "logical >>conclusions" are only as good as the unproven assumptions and the validity of >>the "logical" steps. Many a "logical argument" has been shot down on this >>basis. This is not to suggest that your logical arguments are flawed, however. >>Nothing personal. It's just a general observation. >> >>: ) >> >>Bob D. >> >>Bob D. > >Your gut feeling is misleading you. We had a lot of debates about the value of >science in CTF and it's clear that you can find religious beliefs in science as >well. But that is not the point here. You say you like the products of science. >But you remain sceptic towards science. Fine. But why rejecting basic truths by >one of the science experts here? Expert for exactly the field where the so >beloved engines were created. This doesn't make sense. > >As to the logical context you described, you are right, but where do you see >such a violation in computer chess, meaning the points we were discussing here, >Vincent against Bob? > >Please read the other message where I give two examples. Please show exactly >where you see just little technical errors and NOT huge violations in logic. > >Let me state that I see a huge contradiction in your own presentation. Here you >make the point of HUGE logical fallacies in science, that are also dangerous. >While in the Vincent question you want to say that it's all about little >technical errors. - The truth is that Vincent violates ver basic and highly >important science and logic laws. - So you have an interesting technique of >discussion. Let me call it the war on two frontiers. <g> > >Kind regards, >Rolf Tueschen Rolf, I owe you an apology. In my warped sense of misguided humor, I was baiting you in much the same way that Vincent baits Bob Hyatt. I am genuinely sorry and HATE myself for that. The Devil made me do it!!!! I LOVE all scientists [and chess engine programmers]! Really!! : ) Bob D.
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.