Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:33:46 05/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2004 at 18:27:41, martin fierz wrote: >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... You should learn to read. Look at what I've written. I wrote that I didn't mean you in particular. So, I'm a bit astonished that you make a story out of being offended or not. Of course Bob isn't offended that easily. I knew that. But he doesn't like lies. Can't you read? What did Vincent insinuate? You seem to like that this gets forgotten. Why? Now I expect you to write that this is not your problem. > >>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.