Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:10:41 12/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 23:36:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 2003 at 05:04:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 22, 2003 at 22:28:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Note that I did not say "I will retire if I lose..." I said "I probably >>>should retire if I lose..." >>> >>>You _do_ see the difference, don't you? >>> >>>of course not... >> >> >>I'm completely lost when I try to understand how you keep up with your friendly >>communication with such juveniles. Are your students a good training for such >>pompous bragging types like VD? > >No. Vincent is basically hopeless. He _believes_ he knows everything. He >_claims_ he knows everything. But when he actually has to _produce_ something, >here come the excuses. IE in years past he would have won the WCCC or WMCCC >but he didn't have fast enough hardware. This year he had himself finishing >at the top. Didn't happen. > >It should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that if he were as >good as he claims he is, he would produce _some_ success here and there. IE >we've had 5 CCT events. I've won one outright, and tied for first in another. >Haven't seen him around. Doubt I will _ever_ see him around the top group. > >The problem with the classic "idiot" is that not only doesn't he know anything, >he doesn't know that he doesn't know anything. That leaves him in a world of >hurt. > >Just read Vincent's posts and claims, then look at his "proof" and "results". >They are light-years apart. They likely always will be. Because to get better, >you have to first figure out that you need to improve. Until reaching that >point, nothing good can happen. > > >> But isn't it also sad to see how stupid one can >>be in refusing all kind of helping hands? I seriously doubt that Vincent can >>improve much with his defects resulting from a lack of knowledge of science. It >>so much 'unfreiwillige Komik'. Let's translate as "unwilling comic" in his >>statements. If I were you I would give him ZILCH of real importance for his >>future developping. What do you think what he would tell the World the moment >>you must quit? > >It is just another "sign of things to come." He can't/won't read. The >statement "if I lose, I should retire from computer chess" seems to be a >bit beyond his comprehension. He sees "lose" and "retire" and that's all >he needs to see. He "fills in the blank with words of his own choosing" as >he always does. > > >>The guy is looking very nice but he hasn't any kind of education. >>BTW I have proof by emailed text from him personally. If he had still the >>tradition from the 96's many others should hold the same stuff in their hands. >>It's NOT about you in personal, Vincent doesn't respect _any_ kind of scientific >>forerunners. So far it's only fair that he's always dumped in the tournaments. >>I'm talking about the divinal Gods... > >Yes. The only thing interesting about Vincent is his incredible ability to >continue to spin new excuses. Bad book. Opponent had a killer book. Bad >luck. Not enough depth. Bug here. etc. IE he continually puts down Crafty >(and most every other program for that matter). But then he can't beat it >(them). His "put-downs" would be oh so much more believable _if_ he would just >beat the program he is always putting down. > >One day, Vincent will be the living example of the old story about young >people vs old people: "a 25 year old is talking to his friends, and he says >you know, when I graduated from college, I knew everything and my dad didn't >know anything. I've been out of school for 5 years now and it is _incredible_ >how much that man has learned in that time." > >:) > >You see the moral. The old man didn't learn a thing. The _young_ one did. > >One day, the light will come on, and Vincent will suddenly realize that there >is way more to the world than his flat-earth-society mentality allows him to >see. > >IE he has _already_ declared that clusters will _never_ play chess >effectively. :) Because he can't see a solution. Of course, that >means that no solution is possible. Until someone shows it to him. >He has _not_ exhausted all the NUMA tricks of the parallel search trade >yet, and no, I am not about to tell him more. :) > > Because this is not a forum for executions I need to add the following because nobody shall believe that we spit hate or personal prejudices against a human being. Personally I have a good motivation because I know a possible reason for such a case. At least I think so. Let's start from the very top height in human chess. We had the example of a Champion (Steinitz) who was so strong and successful at first that he simply overlooked that certain lines were weak even when he finally lost games with. The anecdote says that in the end he saw only God as his appropriate opponent. But this is not the time for making cheap jokes. Chess like any other sport in the top ranks for sure is something that is decided completely in one's self. Most important is your self-conscience of course paired with your sense for reality. Now every good chessplayer must have a belief in his own strength because you can't play chess if you are extremely suspicious of your many weaknesses, because then you either lose in zeitnot or play bad moves because you must gamble. I don't know much about the late Miles but I observed that before he played the match against Kasparov he was a number one player. He won tournaments in a row. But thereafter he was only a shadow of himself. Of course every objective observer must have known in advance that Miles didn't play in the same league as one Kasparov. Also Larsen was a number one player who could win tournaments but after his defeat against Fischer that was over. No need to give more examples. Chess has much to do with delusions and false concepts about oneself. Every single move you find in a line - if it's good - lets you look like the best - - until the collegue next door tells you a little refutation. And that play goes on and on. It seems so as if chess requires a split in yourself. Of course you know what you can't achieve but you must be convinced of yourself if you want to win a simple point against your next opponent. And we all know that only a thorough analysis of your own games can tell you more about your weaknesses. In special your lost games are important. The better you are the less probable it is that you'll find someone who could tell you what to do better in your games. Once you reached a certain height you simply must rely on yourself because asking questions would be regarded as sort of confession that you are not so strong as it seems. Now in computerchess we have the somewhat strange evidence that for being a successful chess programmer you must not be a real Grandmaster in chess. But what is if you are a good chess master and your program can't win a top rank? Being a good chessplayer does pay always when you are together with other players. It is directly proven that you are stronger the moment a position is on the board where weaker players don't have a clue. If someone can show you a move (with its good perspectives) you didn't reflect ealier you know that the guy must have a certain talent you don't have. So, a good player feels the good vibrations in a casual group of weaker chessplayers. For the social process in such a group of chessprogrammers the chess talents are important. Even if you are not a champion in computerchess. That has a simple reason because the positions on the boards are always the base for talks. So I can well understand how much fun such a 11-rd tournament is for Vincent. Sitting in your room all alone with your PC display is not so much fun although you can also communicate over the internet. But the direct process of social feedback is less satisfying. In a room in a real life you just yell a single move and the rest of the guys keep quit because they can't see all the aspect in seconds. In real life you have a direct authority through your chess understanding. Probably that is an incentive for some individuals to participate although they haven't won a single trophy in computerchess over the years. I could well imagine that Frans could retire from computerchess much easier than Vincent. At first Frans has won enough titles but he also has no chess fever that he could need for his personal state of mind... Once you've been caught by the chess virus you can feel like your own Wch also if you play fifth board in the sixth league of your club or town. The fun will never stop. Of course it's objectively not justified to be proud of such a performance, but isn't it the self itself that decides in all of us? Don't we all have our delusions? Of course that has nothing to do with sound science. We all remember school and topics we didn't like where we were bad in the final results. Normally we wouldn't decide to make a hobby out of these fields. But chess is different. We can well play successful chess if we find weak enough players. A teacher in school would always tell us that we didn't solve it good enough. But a chessgame can be bad as hell and we can still win it and that is what counts in the end. The latter is the reason why I'm still playing myself. :) When V. is writing his aggressive messages vs. Hyatt he becomes a victim of his own belief in the magic of his speech based on his self-confidence that is fed by his chess talents. V. doesn't understand that a debate in computerchess has a science base. With all the logic involved. Here a seemingly good 'move' could be analysed and proven as totally wrong. Something that couldn't happen in the hall in Graz where V. was a number one expert with Jonny author Zwanzger and David Levy. Peter Wells is much too nice to always show the bad sides of the lines of other experts. But he certainly could have - if politeness and being a gentleman wouldn't be his education... What I want to say is this - - isn't it good so that we have several stages for our life theater? Everyone is his own theater director and we all give our unique exhibition. That is life. But here in CCC we must have a serious base from where we can decide what is right and what is wrong. And here only logic counts and not hand-waving. Not to speak of name-calling. The main fallacy in the wrong decisions in Graz is their logical and historical story. It is such a mess because the failures are relatively easy to discover. But no matter how clear you point at the faults you are socially attacked for being rude. Now this is another schizophrenic delusion. If a TD has the final say by definition of the rules he could well decide nonsense, then the nonsense would still be ok! That is it what all the Darse, Terry, Mike S., Thomas M. and of course Johannes Z. are saying in the many groups. As if the failure could be healed by a rule that says that no failure could be done by the arbiter. Rationally it is extremely telling that until this date no serious defense of the mess in Graz has been presented yet. David Levy mainly wrote that the ICGA had decided that TD was ok. And Bob, it's your own bad luck that in CCC you could prove that the TD did all wrong when the responsibles must not answer here. There we have the phenomenon again that not the objective truth is deciding but the subjective good feeling in 6th league, 7th board... The main insult against our ratio is this in computerchess organizations. We have a tradition that the jobs are done by academics with highest titles. Now, if these guys are messing around, people think that this is a new logic of a new century or such new modern wave dance. Nobody would assume that these experts are doing that all outside their main fields and here is no aether that guarantees that the experience could be transferred from the main field to mere hobby pass time jobs. Of course we won't discuss the finacial factors of such events here in CCC because we would end in politics. However politics is a main topic in CTF. :) Also in the usenet group rgcc you can well talk about such difficult topics without hurting other people's businesses. I wish you and all others a Happy Christmas, 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.