Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:48:35 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2004 at 19:33:05, Uri Blass wrote: >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. > I think I understand what you are saying but I assume that you misunderstand the reality of such publications. The whole interpolating and calculating was NOT part of Bob Hyatt's (first) version of the article. That was an add-on later during the process of proof-reading (?). At least that is what I remember of the debate at the time. Now I ask you, Uri, why something should be mentioned if (as a mistake) the add-on was not discovered as partially false? Yes, you might well call it a mistake, but do you know for sure that Bob had any time at all to think this over? Because normally you rely on the proof-reading experts. I dont remember who that was in the ICCAJ. I hope it wasn't J. vd Herik. :) Rolf >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.