Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:10:08 01/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2004 at 19:48:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 He has been the editor for as long as I can remember, in fact, so Jaap was involved. But he was not a reviewer. He simply collected the comments from the reviewers and sent them to me (he also always changed "color" to "colour" but I never hesitated to change it back. :) ) > > > > > > >>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.