Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:50:11 02/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2004 at 19:25:48, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 06, 2004 at 19:13:35, Larry Scott wrote: > >> >> I did a search of google and found a bunch of references where there exist >>extreme antongonism between Rolf and Dr Hyatt, this seems funny since in this >>group Rolf agrees with literally everything Dr. Hyatt says, are these two >>different rolfs? > >It is a wonderful trait of humans that they can adapt and change for the better. > We should all rejoice! Why try to relive the past and resurrect past mistakes? > >Bob D. This is a false memory. The whole part of the differences in fact came out of pure political and not computerchess topics! The only difference in computerchess I had with Bob was about the way the DB2 team treated their ideal and most wanted experimental playing partner Kasparov. However here we have an often not fully understood problem: Bob knew the guys of the DB2 team from personal contacts and he believed them at face value. Bob had a poor opinion of Kasparov. As a scientist I knew that the DB2 team had caused Kasparov to burn out because no scientist would inhibit exactly the optimal behaviour of his client that he wants to research. So the science aspect was killed. But Bob insisted that science wasn't the main aspect at all since it was just about winning. Since Kasparov always repeated the importance of science in the match I was on Kasparov's side. However - at least at the shows against JUNIOR and FRITZ in NY when Kasparov again wasn't tired to claim science and all the importance I turned away from him. I do no longer think that the former Wch is to be taken for serious. For him this was always about the money, nothing else. So, I didn't change my opinion about science but one cannot believe Kasparov, he's just a PR proxy for the business. That I never really was in a debate against Hyatt about original computerchess topics is too clear because I am still a lay in that field. I'm just playing the progs. I'm not even testing them, but testers aren't real experts to me. I know enough about statistics so that I can say that most results that are presented here in the chess groups have no validity at all. But also here Bob did never disagree. More than once he agreed that machines are still not on GM level over-all. Politically Bob frightened me with the typical American way of Free Speech but nobody (with the exception of Bruce from the Blitz Wch FERRET) came close to Bob's outstanding talent for taking for serious even the questions and positions of a computerchess lay. As a multi-time winner of CC events and two times Wch Bob answered all the questions I had without ever showing some contempt. Against that decency certain extreme contradictions in politics lose importance! However the masses and certain cliques always want to remember these politcal war games... Here you are correct, Bob D., that often people show their class when they can get over past difficulties and if they can concentrate their efforts on other priorities. But the reader might think for himself: would it really matter if I convinced Bob of the bad sides of the death penalty and would lose him as my personal state of the art for all kind of computerchess questions? The decision was very easy for me. I know of no expert in CC who has such a lack of any pompous or arrogant appearance than this CC Master from the Stone Ages of Tournament Chess in CC. I defend this against all odds, folks! And don't forget: Life is very short, you all will take notice of the fact when it's too late! ;)) 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.