Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy -- rebuttal

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 03:02:25 12/23/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 23, 2003 at 02:43:38, Terry McCracken wrote:

>A question;What do either of you hope to achieve with this type of scurrilous
>discourse?
>All I see is an unending cycle of contempt. This will lead nowhere.


That is a typical question for me. Thanks for asking, Terry.

Actually it does lead somewhere. You seem to be very unexperienced with a
scientific discourse. Someone makes a proposal another one refutates. Now, it
depends. If the first author can back up his claim then fine. Probably the
second will seek further weaknesses. But if he had already found a KO argument
that was never correctly addressed by the first writer then this has a short
extension that debate.

The internet isn't really science. You can well say much nonsense and although
you get corrections you can well continue with your nonsense. That is because
you don't run a great risk in case you hide behind anonymity. However if you
play with open cards you are simply burnt for further serious debates. That's
how it works.

Terry, such a discourse is not something where democracy decides about the
quality of the arguments. One single counterargument can destroy the huge
building presented and defended by million people. So, here I agree with you,
Darse has all the right to present his case. Nobody has the right to tell him to
shut up. But it is a totally different thing if someone tells Darse what the
weaknesses are in his presentation. Then Darse should well show up with his
data. Terry, Darse did his best to my knowledge. He even quoted the many rules.
So in his view he had supported his case.

Now the other side of the medal. Darse - although he claimes _almost_ 40 years
of experience as a TD in computerchess, at least he behaves like that - he's so
unexperienced to even understand why his presentation sucks in certain respects.
So it is NOT the singular rule Darse presented good enough, but it's the whole
chain of single decisive item in the behaviour of a TD, where Darse fails to
make a reasonable case in defending Jaap vd Herik.

The reason is this: Jaap had a single possibility, not two or three, to solve
the case. Zwanzger had made moves he shouldn't have moved. Before he had
contacted the TD. That should be repaired by simply taking them back these
moves. And then the game would have been a draw. Here the TD completely went
over the edge in tolerating the way Zwanzger behaved. Since Zwanzger
intentionally threw a game and also he said so. He wasn't hiding that. But this
is most indecent by definition to throw a game! You sure knew that, Terry.

And that's all. But then Darse comes back and insists. By the same routine Bob
telly him the basics. That is not offending of sorts, Terry. That is the style
of such discourses. Of course Darse loses all credits over time periods when he
doesn't grasp the very basic of such problems. And in the aftermath it's looking
rather silly for a such experienced in his own self-perception. Because then he
should know what this is all about. But apparently he can't look through it.

Of course this isn't looking nice for Darse. One could also speak of suicide.
But that is NOT Bob who's enforcing it. It is Darse' own freedom to defend
certain nonsense. And if he does it with all the weight of his reputation then
he gets crashed if his case doesn't hold the water. But it is his own fault.

Also if he then also insults Bob, then it looks even more premature. Something a
real expert would never do. So, then again, Bob assumes that something can't be
correct in the presentation of Darse. That is simply experience. Because
although experts could be stupid in single instances they would later recognize
their own faults. This is exactly not the case in Darse.

Honestly Terry, your loud support for him does Darse not so good. Because now
he's in a double bind and can't admit any faults because then he would probably
lose your respect. Isn't it?

But you could well write him email and beg him to tone down. That would be the
best IMO. His case is lost anyway. But he could recover personally. However with
emotional overreactions he can't recover at all.

Just from my expert's view.

All the best to you, Terry,

Rolf



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.