Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:46:45 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 19:43:41, Franz Hagra wrote: >>Was ist denn so schrecklich an diesen Postings? Abgesehen vom komischen >>Posternamen sind diese m.E. noch im Rahmen. > >Nun das schreckliche darin ist, dass diese Posting eventuell von Dir selbst >stammt und sein Ziel ist, krititsche Poster abzuschrecken, weil man sich nicht >sachlich mit ihnen auseinandersetzt, sondern die Sache ins lächerliche ziehen >möchte - so schwer ist das doch auch nicht zu verstehen - sogar für einen >Wiener! > >Hagra Hagra, you hit the nail again. BTW this is exactly the reason why I call Mike a spin doctor. Because - like the spin doctor in Wag the Dog (film with De Niro, Dustin hoffman etc.) - Mike does NOT want to solve a problem like a scientist with absolute will to respect the truth but he's inventing side problems to confuse the crowd. You are often writing in CSS, always having a deeper critic in mind and hoping for a decent counter position or, if this is impossible, a friendly admission of having done something wrong but thanks to you the point is clarified by now. But exactly this is not happening on CSS. Look, I am not a member there but from time to time a topic comes up where I have a decent experience with. Agreed, it is seldom a topic of a concrete question of tests or computerchess tournaments in automatic style. But you raised a well known topic again where a whole test stands to a critical debate. I dont know Michael Gurevich. My intention is by far something against this author. But from the very beginnings I knew that something was wrong with the WM-Test. Why is it so obvious that Mike S. is a spin doctor? Take his latest message on my critic Part II. Mike argues as if he had never heard of a science approach where personal things play no role. If I had his job and big interest into such questions I would stir up the climate so that _more_ people would send in their critical ideas!! Know what I mean? If I had the responsibilities for CSS and its forum I would be interested in the class of a debate with its arguments. But Mike S, and his teamsters are basically watching that no critic against ChessBase and CSS and its authors is spread. I would call for critics and Mike is defending and defaming critics. That is the whole truth. I gave significant proof for the insulting climate against critics like you. If I ask the permission to publish my critical position in that forum, it is NOT because I expected something for me but it's for the best of a difficult problem, here the validity of a test suite. If my arguments are weak then for the best of the topic if someone can prove me wrong. But if a critic cannot be refutated then a writer should be thanked for his contribution. That's all. It has been said before by many people, that it seems as if that specific forum like the journal is made to keep away problems and difficulties. People who send their critics are defined as "disturbance" for the "peace" of a forum. Incredible! Of course there is no civil right to be a member in a private forum. But this is also nothing I run for. The interesting topic alone is the motivation for me. Hagra, contrary to Mike's statement I was never banned for ever from CSS. I was informed that it was better not to write for a time period because the actual situation then called for such a retirement. Because, although I did never insult someone, certain people wrote for my exclusion. In that anonymous style you can now see in the messages of the Genius today. These posting themselves are against the charta because they dont address content but go directly ad hominem. YOu have luck that your own identity is not yet chosen as a topic! That was the case with me when I wrote my postings under Schachfan for almost 2 years. But I had the luck that Fred F. knew who I was and no one else knew me, even DSt. There was NEVER agreement that I would never more write in CSS, this is a clear invented by Mike. Back to the topic of computerchess: Actually Mike is a weak spin doctor! He simply cant get why it's not trivial when a stronger machine suddenly gets a weaker result just because it ponders on an alternative line. As you showed it then came back to the earlier line. But the second continuation is therefore not irrelevant! Only Mike isn't tired in claiming (MG actually brought the same argument in CSS) that the real "solution" for position 1 is still Re3. All the defenders miss the point in your critic. Namely that the stronger machine loses time=points thinking deeper! They simply dont get that this is a clear proof for the invalidity of position number 1. Mike is always writing VERY interesting arguments and I had a big motivation to discuss this all over. Showing him where he's going wrong. Should I do that if I am treated like an outcast? With no respect? Of course not. I say the same you said about that "Genius" who insulted you. Let them go wrong with their Testsuite. Why should we help increasing the level of debate in CSS? It's a pity for the topic and for the lost energy of so many people and lovers of 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.