Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:27:41 05/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2004 at 16:30:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 04, 2004 at 10:49:42, martin fierz wrote: > > >>i don't know why you think you have to stand up and defend bob every time >>somebody says something about him you don't like. just leave that up to him. he >>can take it :-) >> >>cheers >> martin > > >Because this is a case of principles. I saw how Vincent treated Bob for long. I >read how the Levy/Herigk organization reacted on Bob's relevant critics. I >smell something and although I am as far from being an expert in CC as Bob is an >expert I can analyse the logic of arguments in special if it comes to data and >statistics. Of course can defend himself. In special when he doesn't have to >defend at all. But it's simply stinking when I watch how nobody from the clique >of programmers says something about all the topics. Finally I react as academic. >I must do ROTFL every time I read something about the participation in those Wch >and other events and the prejudices about the net. Veritable GM play online but >programmers of chessprograms want to _operate_ ten days and longer! It is nasty >now I know, but don't they have a regular job? Or are they so rich that they can >do that at will. Or do they convince their institutions that operating a >chessprogram needed the programmer themselves? (I know that the "rules" of the >ICCA require that. But is it not laughable?) what does all of this have to do with the fact that i asked bob for some numbers? as you can see from his answer, he's not offended, and indeed doesn't seem to have given the numbers i asked for. you know, i understand that you take bob's side in the everlasting "bob vs vincent" saga. but attacking me for a reasonable request, i don't understand... >Yes, for all that I write. If only one single famous and successful programmer >would write in defense of Bob I were somewhere else. i'm not famous, and i'm not successful, but if you care to look, i also pointed out that 2.8 and 3.0 are very close to 3.1, which is what the guys attacking bob don't want to believe. and if both sides had given standard deviations of the average for their numbers (which is what i'm asking for), then this whole discussion would already be done with, because for example 3.1+-0.2 is consistent with 2.8+-0.3 but since 0.2 and 0.3 in the above are hypothetical i asked for them... IIRC bob's 3.1 came from 30 (only!) positions. meaning if the speedup numbers fluctuated only half as much as bob says, then the 0.2 i suggested is already realistic. cheers martin But this is so mean and >indecent. Perhaps I write also because I like this man who has so much heart >blood for computerchess.
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.