Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:14:32 01/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2003 at 17:46:36, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 16, 2003 at 16:27:27, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>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? > >Not exactly a sin but a bad coincidence. Of course you can psychiatrize Vincent, >but is that really what you want? How about at first examine the normal >possibilities? > >Also for the rest of your funny comments (War4 goes to you honouring your sense >of humour!) you avoid (not evitate, but see inevitable) the real situation here. >Sure we have not science as a God here but sience and logic are the bases for >all what we do. Does it mean that we must be scientists to be able to program a >master program? No! But the basics are from science, no doubt. > >You then always proclaim equity (thanks for the term) between Bob and Vincent >which is ridiculous. The question of politeness is more difficult than you >think. Sure Bob often uses strong language. But what IF he's right and Vincent >wrong most of the time? Isn't it allowed to show some CONTEMPT if someone is >always repeating nonsense? And in doing so insulting me? As if I faked my >results? What is the heavier violation? Making fun of the aggressively spreading >incompetent or accusing a scientist of fraud or stupidity? That was the point of >the increase question with the parallel processors. Already forgotten? Next you >again claimed that exaggerations were normal practice here in such a >computerchess group. And you seem to like it. Well, then we have come to an end >of a possible rational debate. I wouldn't deny that the individual programmer >must have the talent to motivate himself. But if he tried it with lies or >outrageous nonsense it would hurt his perception. > >But in truth you still avoid to discuss a general question. That of arrogance. >And then compare how a two times champion is talking with newbies and how >Vincent is talking with a two times champion. If you still dream of equity then >you must be blind. > >Let me end War4 with the refutation of that nonsense that a 14 years old Bobby >Fischer would prove that kids are as developped as 50 years old professors. Now >I must exhume my most powerful argument. Here it goes. Did you ever hear of >idiot savants? Could we therefore close the debate about baby prodigies? Of >course they show outstanding talents. But in how narrow fields??? > >Thanks for being game here in that interesting debate. > >Rolf Tueschen <snip> I would like to continue this discussion with you, but feel that it is inappropriate for the Computer Chess Bulletin Board. With your permission, I will copy this bulletin to ICD's Chess Thinkers Forum bulletin board and we can then continue there. OK? 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.