Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:02:38 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2003 at 00:43:13, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >Bob, please calm down. Just ignore that thread, and do not write to it. You both >look... how to say it... not in your best shape. > >Thanks, >Eugene > I don't understand such an advice. Bob is just taking Darse Billings for a serious correspondent who is almost the only one defending the decisions of the TD in Graz. However - many here have noticed that DB, if he had the standing and status he's claiming, he couldn't have those positions he claims. Even I, a complete computerchess newbie and lay, could bury almost 90% of Billings' arguments, before I had read any reaction from others at all. Since I know Bob for years with our own "battles" I know that Bob takes even a lay for serious if he presents own positions. This is only understandable to those who know something about the teaching process at universities or other institutions. As a teacher you don't ask yourself if a student could just ask out of mean motives. You only see something wrong and you want to clarify the problem. I am personally very thankful to Bob that he - different to many others, often tried to take me from where _I've_ started so that I had a chance to follow the issues - at least partially. It is an extremely sophisticated talent if you can do what Bob did. He can both enter the most technological details for programmers and he is likewise prepared to answer the simplest beginner questions and he does it all with the same clarity. It would be misunderstanding Bob, if you thought that he does all that like a teaching robot. Without emotions. And this is exactly what is so offensive in case of Billings. You know that the main actors in Graz stay silent. They did their job, made their faults and enjoy or hate the debate here in CCC. Now Billings is like a proxy and he takes the most extreme position that the decisions in Graz were not always the best but they are all kosher in view of the rules. The existing rules he points out without exact quotes. Now without Bob, who was present when all these computerchess rules were made, yes, even thought through, and he can quickly say if Darse has a case or not, most of the readers must have taken Darse Billings with all respect based on his references. Even I showed that in reality he has none. Because he lacks of internal stringent clues. DB is a good example for hand-waving and such communicational tricks. Since I have not the expert status of Bob Hyatt I showed the holes in Billings presentation without emotions. If I had written idiot I would have been moderated on the instant. But let me explain why I find that Bob did all the readers, young and old, experts or lays, something good. Let me please transpose in peaceful words. The position in the presentation of Darse Billings is so far wrong, that the presentation with the titles included and the claim of having led multitudes of tournaments in human chess and computerchess becomes wrong in itself. Darse couldn't say what he says if all what he claims would be true. As an expert you discover that. And surprise, even a computerchess lay has a chance to look through the sparkling appearance, if he had learned something about logic and communication like me. Because Darse can't be right and true by _all_ possible experience and admitted doubts, Bob brought his verdict down to a single term. To clarify for the unexperienced readers what is going on here. To me another problem arose. What expert could have the motivation to present a lost case with so many words and emotions? Because the main counter-arguments have been presented long ago? Rolf
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.