Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:46:27 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1998 at 08:00:14, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 13, 1998 at 06:01:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On November 13, 1998 at 01:53:16, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>When the price of Rebel10 dropped I counted more than 50 postings here on >>>CCC. Criticism on a companies policy. I saw no single personal attack. So >>>it's allowed and the CCC charter wasn't abused. >> >>You may not have seen the ones that were deleted then. There were a few that >>went more toward you than toward Schroeder BV. >> >>There is a difference between complaining about some business policy and calling >>someone some nasty name because of their business policy. It's not clear >>exactly where to draw the line, although it's easy to say that there should be a >>line. >> >>I don't think that Bob needed to speculate about why Amir and Shay say what they >>say, I think that he should talk about what they say rather than why they say >>it. And if someone wants to say I'm a hypocrite because I did my own >>speculating recently, that's probably fair. >> > >You did. I'll make comment on your post later this weekend. > > >>I'm not on call this month, Amir is, and he's involved in this, and I guess I am >>too, so I think that this thread should be moderated by Don, unless he wants to >>do some fighting as well. >> > >No, Don is on since the 11th. You are on from Dec 1st, if you forgot. > >If I weren't party to this debate, I don't know how I would treat it as >moderator. On the one hand, this topic is interesting and central to this >newsgroup, like the Fritz5/SSDF debate was. On the other hand, I also think that >Bob is going too far with name-calling and innuendo, and in another post he goes >so far as to say that I keep evading by discussing the topic rather do what he >thinks should be done: discussing his innuendo and revealing my secret agenda >(!) > >It's quite a bit unfair to me because being a moderator, I assume restraint in >answering that I think that I wouldn't otherwise. > > >>Does anybody have anything new to bring to this, or are we down to pure rock >>throwing now? >> > >Later, as a reply to your post. > >Amir Here's a public offer... I give you permission to say *anything* you want to say about this offer, and I'll personally ask that don, yourself, and Bruce take a break and choose to *not* moderate this thread. And then I'll ask the question once more: Why would Shay write an article (presumably for publication somewhere) and make either of the following statements: 1. IBM stock price rose 20% after beating kasparov. Any economist would laugh at the suggestion. One here did. 2. Suggest that IBM avoided computer vs computer events after losing to Fritz in 1995 when there were no computer tournaments after that point, unless you include something like the Dutch, French, Australian computer chess tournaments that are typically weak enough (compared to the international ACM or WCCC events) to not warrant serious consideration. I don't think that DB is necessarily better than Kasparov. Neither do I think it is necessarily worse than Kasparov. I don't think I have enough data to make up my mind. At present, I'd certainly argue that it is "close" to him, based on 6 games. As far as motives about what you think about DB, I can only speculate. But if you go back for a few years, we've had the following disagreements: why/how DB lost in Hong Kong; whether or not DB's output for game 2 was sensible or did it suggest foul play; did DB deserve the last two parts of the fredkin prize (one for GM-level, one for beating world champion in a match). All of those center on one topic: Deep Blue. I don't believe you will ever find a post of mine suggesting that you are an inferior being, that you have no character, that you are a cheater, that you are ignorant, or anything else. You won't find a single post that is negative about the way your program plays chess. So we only get into these discussions about a *third party* program. And for that, I'd simply ask "why?" Why bring in something obviously prejudiced like the article by Shay, other than to make the DB guys look bad? Why make the statement "this output needs explanation by IBM to make it clear that nothing odd happened" and so forth? My position is this: Someone attacks them, I will respond if I know enough about the situation to warrant it. I'd do the same for Bruce, Ed, or even yourself if you weren't here to stand up for yourself. And I'm going to do the same for them, because I have known all of them for 15 years now, and have *never* had a single reason to think they might be dishonest. End of my story... waiting to hear from you. Make it as personal or as factual as you want. I won't run and hide, and I won't duck when you swing. But I will stand up for what I believe is right... and stand against what I believe is wrong... The "article" by Shay was *wrong*.
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.