Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 13:27:27 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 14:46:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 16, 2003 at 13:05:50, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On January 16, 2003 at 12:10:07, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>On January 16, 2003 at 03:29:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2003 at 21:41:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>Saying "vincent exaggerates all the time" is like calling a cup of sand a >>>>>"desert". It is a gross understatement... exaggerate means to expand >>>>>something beyond its normal boundary. Most of what he says is not based on >>>>>any sort of factual evidence whatsoever, which makes it more fiction and >>>>>less exaggeration. As you can see, Bob Hyatt agrees with me completely! Vincent exaggerates and also likes to write fiction. That should be OK. Look at Issac Asimov. He did the same thing, and his books are classics! Would anybody really believe there would ever be telepathic robots? But this is a chess programming bulletin board. All exaggeration and fiction must be about chess programs. I think "good old" Vincent meets that requirement. >>>> >>>>I know there have been many discussions, the last one I remember was about >>>>functional languages. IIRC he said something about them being slow and gave an >>>>example with a program he wrote that was 2000 times slower than in C. >>>> >>>>Everyone disagreed, but from my (granted limited) experience he is right. >>>>It's like a hiarcy: asm, C, C++, java,... the more advanced the slower it is. >>> >>>What about everybody elses experiences? That's exactly the problem with Vincent. >>>He thinks nothing of other people or their experiences. It is true that Vincent's writing does not dwell on the ideas of others. He reports on the world he lives in. His world may not be completely real, but he at least does not appear to be dishonest about what he is describing. He tells it the way he sees it, right or wrong. Is it a SIN to be wrong part of the time? >>> >>>More abstract languages tend to be slower in practice, sure. That's my >>>experience too (I would place C and C++ on the same level, speedwise, though). >>>But that was not what Vincent said. He hinted Well, "hinting at" is a far cry from outright dishonest lying. >that functional languages are 2000 >>>times slower than C, which is nonsense, unless you're a really bad programmer. >>>Given some C implementation of a checkers program, one can make a functional >>>equivalent, in a given functional language. But for the functional languages I >>>know (SML,Lisp,Scheme and others), this would not mean a 2000 time slow down. It >>>would mean something on the order of 10 times slower. For many calculation >>>intensive programs, 10 is even high. With Caml or other good functional language >>>implementations, it would mean a 2-4 factor slowdown. At the most. So what is >>>the reason of writing 2000? 2000 seems only to indicate that Vincent is a very >>>poor programmer of functional languages. >> >>Obviously, poor Vincent is much maligned here. He was merely trying to >>communicate. Exaggeration is a commonly recognized and accepted method for >>communication. For example, "Vincent won't go to Bob Hyatt's office because it >>is a million miles away from where Vincent lives." Everybody knows what that >>means. > >I couldn't believe my eyes seeing you in a third war about the truth in >science. Who said anything about science???? You surely don't think "computer science" has anything at all to do with real science, do you? It's just a misnomer. When was the last time that a chess engine programmer actually used the Scientific Method to do his/her programming? >Like in the other two cases you are completely wrong here again. Perception is everything. : ) >First of all I >don't understand what you mean with "poor". Well, that was just more of my misguided/warped humor. He may be rich, for all I know. >Vincent is a respected chess >programmer with a good program. But in his "debates" with Bob Hyatt who - by >chance :) - is an expert in science It would be interesting to know whether or not Bob Hyatt regards himself to be a "scientist," like as a biologist, physicist, geologist, or medical researcher. More to the point, do chess engine programmers in general feel that they are "scientists"? >and also very successful in chess >programming, he behaves impolitely, to take just a term at hand. Unfair! Moderator Bob Hyatt sets the standards for acceptable levels of politeness; at least insofar as the Hyatt/Diep debates are concerned. Vincent should not be held to a higher standard. I recall one bulletin where Bob told Vincent that his ideas were "horse droppings," or something similar. >I could also >say lack of respect. But no, Vincent is always contradicting certain results of >such experts as Bob, Bob understands that he must support his assertions with factual information, and he generally does. Being regarded as an "expert" does not relieve one of that responsibility. >and as I could read, also Eugene, but here such >"exaggerations" simply mean, that the given results 'could not be true'. And you >find that this is just normal communication in science? Again: Who said anything about science???? >Or do you want to talk >about seamen or hunters who talk their usual drivel, more delusional than real, >in the local pub? Please do not ridicule seamen and hunters. They are as good as anybody. >I think the moment someone wants to doubt the (experimental) >results of experts, if he uses extreme exaggerations and what is more important, >a very serious, strong and aggressive language, then this is no longer friendly >tongue in cheek talking. Well I never gave the Hyatt/Diep debates high marks for friendliness. >I never heard of such a communication at least in >science. More so, excuse me, but I didn't start the debate, if the attacker has >no serious scientific education at all. So then such an aggressive attitude >becomes insulting, also very stupid and self-revealing. More so if the age of >the attacker is no longer 12 and a half but passed 30! Interesting. How old do you think Vincent and Bob H are? : ) > >Do you want to deny that I am right with my judgement? Judge not, lest YOU be judged! > >Let me ask you an important question. What do you want to fulfill with your >defense of simply false and aberrant behaviour? Equity. >Do you think that computer chess >is almost out-dying I certainly hope not! I want BETTER chess engines and other chess software. >and that therefore we should train our tolerance towards >lack of science, education and of good 'kinderstube'? > >I can say what I expected. That Vincent showed up here and excused himself. >Because then everybody would be happy. Because, as I said earlier, beyond all >critic, I prefer if someone says what he thinks so that one could criticise his >faults, instead he became someone who would only parrot something the experts >said, without meaning or understanding it. > >But in your whole wars lies a hidden scandal. You set the attacked experts equal >with the attacker and his many faults. In truth you preach a sort of anarchy of >anything goes or everybody has his faults or nobody here is really an expert. Or >also this: the lay in science with all his faults is as valuable as the real >expert/ academic, because allegedly the expert has as many faults. This is the >hidden credo of your argumentation. But that is simply nonsense! With the same >logic you could also set equal a 12 year old kid and a 50 years old professor, >which is ridiculous! For two reasons: education and experience. Even if the kid >should be a genius. You got me on that one! Since I am much older than 50, I could prefer to think that I am somehow better than 12 year olds. But, of course, that would be just foolish wishful thinking. Bobby Fischer was only 14 when he won the US Championship. Don't belittle the twelve year olds! They are not inferior in the least. > >No, this is becoming dishonest. I would always assist you if you wanted to argue >that blind trust in science is something we should evitate. Are you serious? Blind trust in science? : ) [What does "evitate" mean?] I would not advocate blind trust in ANYTHING manmade. [Not even chess programs.] And I would certainly shun blind faith in such things. "Keep one's eyes open and a clear head!" That's my motto. >But the >glorification of simply impolite behaviour inacceptable. I have not seen anybody say that "politeness" is a dominant characteristic of the Hyatt/Diep debates. They have their own way of communicating and THEY set the standards for their conversations. We do not. > >And to give the readers a last explanation, let me show you that in serious >communication it's almost the same if you just say "Liar!" or if you repeat from >time to time "I have such and such and therefore your results can't be true", IF >after a thorough research it could be shown that your "I have such and such" is >(always!) nothing but exaggerated or misunderstood statements. Then the claim >becomes insulting "therefore your results can't be true". Well, it's OK with me if someone expresses his or her perceptions. Their perceptions do not have to agree with mine. > >Now an absolutely last possibility: Bob D., do you want to insist that nobody >should no longer take V. for serious anyway? I would say that this would be >almost an inhuman reaction. And I hope that you didn't mean it this way. Like I said before: Bob and Vincent are both "good guys" in their own way. I believe they could become good friends if they each gave it half a chance. But first, they must learn to understand and appreciate each other's very different "worlds." One is from Mars, and the other Venus. They are worlds apart, right now. But it doesn't have to always be that way. Astronauts and Cosmonauts both occupy the International Space Station right now. Miracles do happen!!!! > >So - War3 has come to an end. Let's see what your creative spirit might propose >next. Me? Creative? Are you kidding? : ) > >Kind regards, >Rolf Tueschen > > >> >>Bob D. >> >> >>> >>>>I guess there is not much of a theoretical reason why that should be true, but >>>>it just happens to be a fact most of the time. >>>> >>>>Besides that, I don't think anyone really talked about what a functional >>>>language is, so isn't it possible that too was a source of disagreement? >>>> >>> >>>What do you mean? >>> >>>/David
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.