Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:38:50 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 05:41:54, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On February 06, 2003 at 05:19:13, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 06, 2003 at 04:32:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>When we witness human v comp events, that although this is a computer chess >>>forum, a human is involved. What i mean is that we see for example people saying >>>g3 would have won because my computer say so or even worse "it just does" with >>>no further evidence to back such statements up. >> >> >>Excuse me, if someone under a pseudo declames in the name of 'we' it is >>something to be looked upon with care. > >We as in "we who post here", not we as in "we are all in agreement" you seem to >read more into minute details, than is actually there... > >By pseudo i assume you are reffering to my handle "cohonas" well people who know >me here also knows my name is Jonas Bylund, no secret there, as far as i >remember though, some people would say that there are two rolf's that are infact >the same right? > >>It is surely problematic viewed from a serious perspective (psychology for >>example) if someone wants to support a specific side in the debate, but >>carefully hiding that motivation, just by insinuating that the other side would >>prefer to put questions or guesses into "facts". The method of confusioning is >>dishonest viewed from serious perspectives. I want to explain why this is >>dishonest. Because someone with high interest wants to defamate the opposite >>side. Let us analyse what is goig on here. > >I just shared my opinion, no need to get all worked up about it :) > >>We attend a show event of which we KNOW as a FACT that the human player >>(allegedly) gets 500 000 US$$ just for showing up! This fact is to be remembered >>in all further debates. Let's forget about the peanuts he gets in case he wins, >>loses or draws the show. Now that is the usual deal in sports like boxing for >>instance. > >"we" and "let's" now don't you think your choice in words contradict's your >critique of my choice of words... > >>Now something about the motivation of the player. We know for sure that only >>with a special anti-comp-strategy (a completely riduculous one and useless for >>human chess) even GM could win on passing by against today's machines. As I said >>(you see: I am honest, I don't claim to speak for a clique or lobby) >>the strateg is somekind of ridiculous. Now that is the reason why GM hate to do >>the homework for such a nonsense. While we know for sure that many experts in CC >>and average players especially like to cook such exclusively anti-comp remedies. >>Now guess what! Are these people invited for a Donut or are the special players >>from Russia, who travel around the world in the endless search for money, the >>prefered opponents for comp-human show events? [I must excuse because I know >>well that the money input in chess is in itself ridiculously low compared with >>all other sports and multimedia events. It should be understood that I do NOT >>want to blame the poor chess talents from former URS. Compared with their >>talents they sell themselves to the devil called peanuts. Let there be no doubt >>about it!] >> >>What is the best gamble in such a show? Viewed from a serious perspective,not a >>lobby? Clear: draw or almost draw! Why? Because. It's simply the best for a >>future deal. >> >>So if people here, me included, look simply on the moves and fid moves like a3 >>in the 5th a bit telling in connection with the game later on, then this is not >>conspiracy stuff telling. Not by far! Let me state that it's dirty that people >>who have no standing in chess try to defamate those who surely are no masters >>but who have chess knowledge enough and also CC experience enough and also >>anti-comp enough, that they can judge what a specific development on the board >>might tell. >> >>And also this: If the existing real experts are part of the business deal there >>is no other choice for the experienced lover to make up his one mind, because >>the expertsabstain or talk propaganda. Also the money greed of especially >>Kasparov - high above of pride - is legendary. PCA - just a term to remember. > >To be quite honest i think you are seing ghosts. > >>So, what was it with your preaching ceremonies? > >Since when did sharing my opinions become preaching? > >>Let me ask a few questions. >> >>How much money David Levy gets for that his organization attends the show? >> >>What is the recompense of players/experts like Mig, Gazza, Maurice and Frederic? >> >>Excuse me, you (who?) ordered to ask questions! > >No need to excuse, this is all in good spirit right? > >You seem to take my post surprisingly personal, well i can only say (if it was >not evident from my post) that it was general views nothing more nothing less. > >Regards >Jonas Thanks so much. For me real names were important. I always hated the hypocrisy of those who called themselves Karin's Dad and who then censored people. I knew that your nick wasn't real. And I take it as a serious case of desinformation. Then, you must not exaggerate my comment on "we", you are right, I use it too. But I saw it being misused in your message. And I still hold it. You are not honest, starting with name, and also with your hidden lobbyism for the show&money side. I discovered it and commented. My own name was always the same. Only in two cases I used a nick because of the censorship of the forum. NB I never used my nick for personal attacks. It was as a persoal experiment because under Rolf many light weight readers always tended to see the 22 y. old Rolf of rgcc in 1996/7. How widespread lightweights are could be seen when you imagine that at the time I wrote under my real name, had my official term of job in my email address and still people took me for a kid. That was really an interesting experience too. Finally - since that time in the mid nineties I know that massive commercial interests, although comparably small in CC, govern the scene in public discussion sites. This leads to a shift exactly into the direction of the inner logic of such an article you wrote. Instead of free exchange of ideas and also opinions, what I always prefered, we saw a typical peer group behaviour. Critical questios or ideas were imediately defamated as illoyal and dangerous for the whole group. Today I am happy to be a member of this American group, because only here it seems possible to exert the right of free speech. In all German fora you must accept the heat ifyou ask questions about the specifically false product, because it's from theother side or could influence the marketing and stuff like that. I for one always relied on the power of my own arguments and ideas. I don't get into depressio if people do't understand or like me. That is a normal effect. I don't like those who - under legend that they just put their very personal opinions - just ract on the critical situation in the group and try to support the criticized side. Your position is simply weak, tosay the least. Because all ideas or theories we post here are just questionable messages. Not "facts" as you tried to insinuate. What you tried is the proposal that lays should step back and wait util "experts" start talking. And that is the problem. Because our experts, i chess, who are interested in such CC, are engaged for the show. What should they have to say? Ashley, Seirawan talked so much in 97 but also then they never really cared for the top question of the event in combination with Kasparov's "problems". I have all the transcripts of their stage appearances. It's all on the level where they hurt nobody. Well, that is exactly the deal. We have always the same picture. People confuse critic with rejection and contempt, which is big nonsense. It is simply weired that CC is ot smarter. We have too many uneducated lays who are button&features experts like the kids who play all night long for the World Championships in Doom or whatelse. But we have few who have learned the tolerance of a free exchange. Even here I am unable to persuade people how important the debate about "allowed" features in CC could be for as possible tournament chess participation. Imediately people think that I want to handicap CC. But again here I could survive after a short debate. Which is impossible in German lobby groups. I case you are not lobbying and you wrote only your very persoal opinion I am certainly sorryif you feeled unfairly attacked. But I only tried to describe the situation during such a show event. 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.