Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary Private Lesson No. 2 * For Christophe

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 10:33:54 07/05/03

Go up one level in this thread

On July 05, 2003 at 05:29:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On July 05, 2003 at 00:47:25, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>Once again I'm extremely surprised by how much you insist in digging into my
>>personal background, and by what you want to do with it.
>And I am extremely surprised that you cannot follow me when I say that I am
>neither an expert for neural networks nor computerchess, but that I could STILL
>participate in an interdisciplinary debate, because of my rudimentary knowledge
>in chess and psychology. You simply dont get it that this is NOT - from my view
>- about details of neural networks nor computerchess. Since I want that you can
>understand I'll give you an almost terroristic example for what I am doing here.
>Now keep yourself comfortable, Christophe!
>You have a cat. You like your cat although she doesn't always do what you want.
>And like your cat I am HERE in the debates like your cat. I am here responsible
>for the good feelings! I am your cat in this debate. Know what I mean? Would you
>tell your cat to read 15 articles about cat psychology if she wanted to make you
>happy? Why do you want me to do such nonsense? My knowledge is way too big for
>the little debate here and therefore I could discover that nobody addressed Tom
>Kerrigan anymore. I did it almost in my sleep, Christophe. Eyes wide OPEN!  :)
>>You have used 3 wrong facts and armed with this wrong sparse information allow
>>yourself to talk about my "psychological manouevering" and that I presented a
>>"totally twisted history".
>Objection. I still stand to every statement I made. Or do you believe I invented
>all that?
>>One thing is now clear: you are as much an expert in neural networks as you are
>>in psychology.
>>As for science, I don't think a real scientist would write anything without at
>>least checking his sources. Or try to conclude anything from three insignificant
>>bits of information (and unfortunately they were not even true).
>I can only repeat that I read the first two items. That with your father's
>university and your short appearance in specific studies. How could I invent
>such informational things? If they are not true, then why I read them in your
>presentation? But ok I forget them if you say something to their existence. We
>are here in a virtual reality and perhaps you wrote it with tongue in cheek -
>how can I know? That I read it in your presentation, that is a fact.
>>I could explain you why your previous posts showed an almost absolute ignorance
>>about neural networks, but for that I would have to explain how they work.
>Yes, that is funny. You read three reports in the net and claim expertdom in
>neural networks so that you can well tell me that I know nothing about neural
>networks. But in truth I never claimed that I knew something but claimed that I
>could STILL participate in the debate because I discovered that the following
>participants did no longer address Kerrigan. Is that too difficult for you to
>understand? Tell me why and perhaps I can help you.
>I asked you to give me the evidence where I talked about neural networks AT ALL,
>Christophe! You simply do not respond. Why? Because it would prove that you
>again produced hot air when telling the group that I didn't know something about
>neural networks - when in fact I did NEVER talk about this specific field?
>Let me give you a simple example that you must be able to understand. You
>behaved as if I, who in reality had talked about Africa, did know nothing about
>South America and you repeat it loud: Rolf, you simply have no idea about South
>America, you should read more about it, wait, here I'll give you some links...!
>Why is all that important, Christophe, when it was about Africa?
>[Now do the following: Set neural networks for South America and the psychology
>of debates for Africa.]
>I give you just another advice for free. Try to debate here right on the spot,
>say something directly after the item you want to criticise. Stop it to give a
>rather confusing whole paragraphe at the end of the posting because you hide the
>points you forgot to mention or which showed your incompetence in the debate.
>Smart people will still discover it, Christophe.
>>I think it will be much better for you to just read a few articles about the
>>basics of artificial neural networks. By doing so the evidence will pop up in
>>your mind like ad windows do in Internet Explorer.
>>I promiss you won't need to read a lot. Just the basics.
>>I'm sorry.
>Ok, I accept your apology.
>>As I said before I think you cannot avoid the trouble of informing
>>yourself a little bit about the topic you were so brilliantly discussing two or
>>three days ago.
>Again, you repeat yourself and you are again totally wrong! I didn't discuss
>neural networks but I came into the debate from an interdisciplinary point of
>view. I talked about chess and the debate itself. I did NOT talk about neural
>networks nor even computerchess programming. So what did make you angry so much?
>That the Subject line contained the term "neural networks"? Yes? But this is
>just another tradition in virtual reality. This is the tradition to build up a
>thread. Often people begin to talk about football and they use the same Subject
>as before, the war against Iraq! Perhaps they try to take the mods for a ride, I
>don't know.
>>Unless you are more interested in my irrelevant personal background than in
>>neural networks... But that would be a real loss for neural networks,
>>mathematics, computer chess, philosophy and psychology at large.
>You forgot astronomy, the universe and God! Uhm, sorry, Christophe, this is CCC
>and NOT CTF, excuse me! Here I must concentrate myself on specific topics! But I
>must admit that it is not so easy to follow me in my three-dimensional space of
>interdisciplinary debate. A certain mature-ship is absolutely required, mere
>bean couters have nothing to lose in the area. Too much freedom of thought would
>cause crises in their perception.
>You should let your cat read my messages before you make premature conclusions.
>She might understand me. I just had a little dialogue with her...
>I recommand that we could take the debate to CTF. There is more room for private

Listen, I'm tired of this.

You forged facts about me, did not even check them, and now suggest that I could
have been lying. And still do not check your sources.

From these forged facts and some twisted reasoning you allowed yourself to
conclude things and now insist that you will stand to every statement you made.

You jumped in a discussion about neural networks, made wrong statements without
even knowing just a little bit about the field you were discussing. You even
admit that you know nothing about the topic in question.

Now you insist that this was OK because you are covered by an universal law of
forgiveness called "interdisciplinary debate".

If I follow your reasoning, this is also the reason why you will not read
anything about neural networks. Probably reading about the topic you were
discussing would taint your "interdisciplinary spirit" and corrupt the value of
your saying.

But nevertheless it would be my burden to explain you what was wrong in your
non-informed talks.

With all the things that you have built up in the last 3 or 4 messages I think
in the next 4 or 5 you will have redefined our whole universe from bottom to

I'm very tempted to follow you in your void endless loop, but I have my cat to
feed. So I think I'll pass on the rest of this discussion.


This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.