Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:00:08 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1998 at 01:53:16, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>I have no idea *what* is at the root of this. The "junior" issue was obviously >>>>a sore point as it was discussed a good while back. Can you think of something >>>>other than "personal" that would account for such a stupid article that was >>>>based on really poor research (the stock gain) and on outright dishonest and >>>>misleading journalism (avoiding computer events that never were a possibility)? > >>>>So no, I don't want to change the topic... but I would like to know what is >>>>driving this "deep blue hatred." Did you consider that article complimentary >>>>or insulting? Factual or misleading? Technically accurate or wishful thinking? >>>>And what might lead someone to write something so obviously biased? Almost has >>>>to be personal. I never understood the name "fight". In the US "junior" has >>>>a unique meaning everywhere, typically "younger or weaker or smaller or >>>>something like that when compared to the original." And in that regard, DB >>>>junior made a lot of sense. We played a few events using a "Cray Blitz junior" >>>>in fact, such as the 1984 US Speed Chess Championship. We couldn't get a real >>>>4 processor XMP, so we ran on a special-edition single processor (a machine >>>>designed to be cheaper than a normal cray) with a slower clock than normal and >>>>slower memory (2x slower) than normal. Harry coined the name "Cray Blitz >>>>Junior" and everyone knew what it meant. I fail to see how doing that would >>>>incur the wrath of someone. But the "hatchet job" (to borrow Bruce's quote) >>>>was exactly that. And the question is "why?" I wouldn't write something like >>>>that about *any* program here. I do my best to be complimentary. I haven't >>>>seen you do such stuff either. So does it strike you as a little odd? Does >>>>me... > >>>>And I learned many years ago, nearly *everything* has a "reason". Even Albert >>>>Einstein didn't believe that anything was random. I tend to agree... > >>>>Bob > >>>>(hope that clears up where I come from) > >>>Yes you clearly made your point :( > >>>I saw an article. It contains statements I agree and disagree on. We talk >>>about its contents. I have seen nothing "personal" (as you say) or "Deep >>>Blue hatred". > > >>more on this below... > >>>I also think "Deep Blue hatred" does not exists. It's an invention of yours. > >>Maybe I am getting too old to be *clear* in my writing. I hope you didn't >>sense that I was talking about *you*. I was, in this case, talking specifically >>about Amir/Shay. If you look at the tone of the article... if you look at the >>tone of previous posts (last year) by Amir... rather than simply say "I don't >>see anything here..." he says "this needs an explanation by IBM". And other >>such statements... they are most definitely personal. At least I can tell you >>that the DB guys think they are personal. And others that have communicated via >>email with me think they are personal... But *not* by you... > >No you are not getting too old. I perfectly understood the topic wasn't about >me but about Amir and Shay and their Deep Blue article. > >I was pointing to the CCC charter. > >And I don't think that when Amir/Shay say: "this needs an explanation by >IBM" that is a personal attack. It's criticism on a companies policy. >Nothing personal involved. > You do realize that the subject of this comment ws dealing with the output from Deep Blue in game 2 of the Kasparov match, trying to explain why they showed one move for many minutes, then mysteriously (to some) changed its mind right at the last second? The "this needs explanation" is clearly meant to mean "this appears to be very suspicious and needs some explanation by IBM to prove that the program didn't get help." which sounds pretty personal. What about the comment "they carefully avoided computer chess events since.." That's not "personal" as in "they" being something besides "people"? And it isn't misleading when there were no more ACM / WCCC events held after 1995? >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. > >More about the nature of CCC below. There were a few that eventually got deleted. But that's nowhere near the same as this. They were attacking your business policy of dropping the price and leaving them stuck with no means of "rebate".. (IE most US electronic stores have a 30 day price guarantee.. if they drop the price, you bring in the receipt and you get a refund to match the new price, even if the better price is at a competitor's store). But they didn't accuse you of being dishonest.. or of not participating in WMCCC events because you were afraid to lose and see your sales drop... ie there was a big difference... > > >>>The fact that we discuss Deep Blue here doesn't mean we hate it. Like >>>it or not we have the right to discuss Deep Blue here and you have no >>>right to label things as "personal" towards Amir and Shay. Next I don't >>>like that you label people (for this occasion Amir and Shay too) as "Deep >>>Blue haters" if they disagree with you (or have another opinion) on a >>>Deep Blue related issue. > > > >>They are the only ones I pointed this finger at. Reread Shay's "article". >>Would *you* write that and publish it? Would you make that assinine statement >>about their "carefully avoiding computer vs computer events after losing to >>Fritz, *knowing* there were *no* computer vs computer events held after 1995? > >I have challenged them several times. Others as well. DB-Junior was invited >by the SSDF. There were many "open" comp-comp tournaments were organizers >would have welcomed them with open arms. How would they compete in the SSDF? Send them a one million dollar computer on loan? It's not even clear that would be legal with US computer export regulations, much less sensible from a corporate standpoint. Who would teach the SSDF guys how to deal with unix? how to operate the program? That's not workable. > > >>You get the drift... That was a direct insult, pointed right at deep blue and >>the team behind it. > >No insult involved. I didn't see one, sorry. then we have to agree to disagree. It looked pretty personal to me. > >>I can see two reasons: (1) anger over the "name" issue. >>(2) jealousy over their accomplishments (aren't we all, but most of us don't >>try to tear them down to build ourselves up). I'd gladly accept another >>explanation... and I have asked specifically for one. But none has been >>forthcoming... only more discussion about the output for Kasparov and the >>like. That last paragraph was insulting and libelous. The first paragraph >>made the author look like an idiot. Unless it was taken out of context and was >>intended as some sort of sattire or spoof... (stock price gains 20% by winning >>a chess match...) > >I only see personal attacks coming from you. See above it's full of it. > My remarks are personal... suggesting that there might be reasons for *their* personal remarks toward deep blue. Something is certainly going on that is not just based on technical merit/discussion. > >>Sorry that this sounds angry... but this type of "butcherknife journalism" won't >>go ignored by me. Any more than I'd let Rolf make his accusations about you in >>r.g.c.c.. I don't defend *you*... I defend what I believe to be your >>*character*. I do the same for Hsu and Campbell (and the rest)... I *know* >>those guys... have had many face-to-face conversations with them. I've never >>seen you personally... yet I'd defend you both against such unsubstantiated >>nonsense... > >>Hope you understand, even if you don't agree... > >>Bob > > >I understand your anger Bob. Deep Blue is very special for you. > >My point was the charter of CCC and this is bothering me. > >If we want to talk and argue in the way (style) you are doing right now then >we have a problem. IMO it's against the charter of CCC we all have signed >for. One week ago 3 people left because of that. > Go back to the beginning here. *I* didn't post that "garbage" article. I did respond to it. I've gotten email from a few others that thought it was really an insulting thing to write and publish anywhere, much less here. I can discuss DB, CB, Crafty, or any other program quite rationally and technically. But that was a personal hatchet-job directed directly at someone that doesn't post here (but who just might read here for all anyone knows...) And I responded because it had no business being posted here in the first place... >If we want to talk and argue like this we must change the nature of CCC. >I see it two ways: > >a) Make it a free rgcc alike forum. >b) stick to the original CCC charter. > >At the moment (b) isn't functioning at all. The latter is not only related to >this Deep Blue discussion we are having now. > >- Ed - Feel free to ask me to leave if you think this would be a better place without me. I wouldn't ask Amir to leave, although I would certainly ask him to leave the anti-deep-blue crap out unless it is *factual*. IE find a bad move it played and lets discuss it. Or find a game it lost and lets discuss it. But not the silly stuff in that article... But if I have "gone over the edge" in your (and others) opinion, I'll gracefully retire back to r.g.c.c and leave it peaceful here. If somewhat filled with inaccurate and insulting remarks that will then go unanswered...
This page took 0.01 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.