Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:59:49 01/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2003 at 19:21:28, Bob Durrett wrote: >On January 15, 2003 at 18:23:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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> > >Challenges to technical information should follow certain unwritten standards. >For example, the challenges should themselves be technically plausible. The >challenger need not be infallible, however. The challenges themselves may be >challenged. That is the nature of technical discourse. > >Bad challenges would include behaviors currently prohibited by the CCC charter. >Ideally, the mud slinging should be minimized, at least for most of us. > >I think this thread should stop soon, however, because we are not solving any >computer chess problems and this has strayed FAR off-topic. > >Best wishes, > >Bob D. Of course we stop here, because you had no more a contentful answer. You are also wrong that we couldn't solve something. In fact I could prove that V. had violated the scientifiestc basics also of computerchess. Nuff said. All the best, 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.