Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:33:05 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2004 at 19:05:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 05, 2004 at 18:51:10, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 05, 2004 at 18:30:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 05, 2004 at 18:18:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>On January 05, 2004 at 13:52:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 05, 2004 at 11:07:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 04, 2004 at 00:43:30, Ed Trice wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Ed, >>>>>> >>>>>>It was my intention to stop posting in the amateur forum, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Why don't you take your "non-amateur" stuff back to the forum for >>>>>the "world's foremost authority on everything" (which has only one >>>>>member of course, so you _never_ have to defend anything you post >>>>>there) and leave the rest of us alone? >>>>> >>>>>your "air of superiority" is sickening, IMHO. >>>>> >>>>>BTW, exactly how many copies of your program have you sold, to qualify you >>>>>to be "non-amateur"??? >>>> >>>>This is quite clearly an amateur forum. The vast majority of the members here, >>>>including you and me, are not paid to write chess programs. >>>> >>>>I know you and Vincent don't get along, but you seem to be able to take offense >>>>at the mildest things when he writes them . . . >>>> >>>>anthony >>> >>> Excuse me if I contradict. IMO Bob Hyatt reacted on Vincents vocabulary with >>>the maximum possible friendliness as academic. I fear you underestimate the >>>nonsense V. is writing from time to time. Others would stop all communication >>>with such correspondent. In Vincent's case Bob tried to be an elderly critic >>>full of mild irony. While V. goes into crass verbal de-regulations. But the >>>limit is if you accuse unjustified a scientist of fraud. A scientist without >>>commercial interest in computerchess. Somewhere there must be a limit! >>> >>>You can criticise all you want and a normal scientist will be happy to have a >>>dispute with you. But somehow you must also show some respect for the academic >>>education. Look, the critic of Hyatt and yours truly against the TD board in >>>Graz is academically sound because it's logically based on the rules and >>>reality. Vincent however has no case at all and he still is talking about >>>'fraud'. >>> >>>Rolf >> >>Note that there were other people who criticized that article including me but >>saying that some data is wrong and even saying that we cannot trust one article >>of Hyatt is different than blaming him like Vincent did. > >This is the first argument and the second, considering your own critic above, >please read http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?340359 >and then say what you mean Bob did wrong. > >1. The original data are ok > >2. There were interpolations; there might be something inexact > >I think we must differentiate between these two cases. If you simply speak of >"data" this could be confusional. The interpolations might be faulty but NOT the >original data. That is at least what Bob is saying IMO. I remember we had also a >debate how such a thing could happen but Bob explained how this could well >happen during the process of the publication. It was certainly not a fraud or >something next to it. It is strange that Vincent has misunderstood it. > >Rolf We certainly cannot claim that we are sure that it was a fraud but the fact that the interpolations were not mentioned in the publication give a reason to have doubts about trusting the article. Hyatt gave an explanation but the problem is that the explanation was given too late and not at the time of the publication. I usually believe that data is correct but if Bob Hyatt remembers to give more information only after people find mistakes then we can wonder and suspect that some more information is hidden and it is a reason to have doubts about the article. Note that I do not claim that data that is calculated based on interpolation is a mistake, but not mentioning it in time is a mistake. Uri
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.