Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:04:48 06/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2004 at 08:47:44, Manfred Meiler wrote: Manfred, next time be please so polite and add the names whose line you quoted! Simply try to behave like a relaxed and serious debater. The following quotes you gave are from my messages indeed. >(...) >>It's a desaster how you and Gurevich treat a critic like Hagra. Your own data >>are thought to be beyond any critic but if someone gives his own data then it >>can be doubted?? > > >No, my own data are of course not "thought to be beyond any critic". Now read carefully the next paragraphe, Manfred. You can learn a lot about correctness and decency. >But if someone interpret them apparent wrong (as "on weaker hardware AMD 1400 >Fritz 8.0.0.23 does never change to Rad8 because it can't go deep as 12") then >it should be allowed to me to clarify this by posting concrete analyse lines of >Fritz 8.0.0.23 on AMD 1400 in this test position. Don't you think? We have a clear language problem. a) Hagra wrote a long message in German, basically the same he also published in CSS. b) I translated some short parts into English. In doing so I missed some important details. Such as the "AMD 1400 cant go deep as ply 12". This is apparently nonsense. It came out of my weak school English. More, I left a bit the main translation and added something, Hagra hadn't said at all. Apparently Hagra meant that in a special time period it was NOT possible to reach ply 12. But your own fault now is that it is completely without importance, that AMD 1400 didn't reach this or that - because the basic and most important result of your tests was, that AMD 1400 FRITZ 8 got the highest points for his result while FRITZ 8 on Hagras hardware and now mine as well gets less points because the harder hardware allows FRITZ 8 to go deeper and then to analyse as first choice a move like 1-Rad8 (Hagra) or 1-Rad8 and then 1-Ne3 (Rolf Tueschen). Where did you _ever_ discuss these findings????? My question therefore: are you ready to debate an apparent contradiction in your WM-Test, at least position 1? Or are you happy with digging into sand in CSS where all critical people have been censored and finally excluded???? Do you think that you must accept such a protection because you know that your WM-Test has a lot of fallacies??? Questions over questions, Manfred, but please run away to your football matches. And come only back to read the greetings of the somewhat timid M. Gurevich who doesn't like debates at all. > > > >Where did you learn such a logic? And what is it if Gurevich, >>yes, he's an academic doctor, I know, that before one criticises one should >>"ask" before? Where did the doctor learn such a nonsense? A critic is a question >>itself. And it should be answered with respect. A critic is NOT an insult or >>disrespect. A critic is the only tool to make progress. >> >>Hagra did find opposing data to yours and I too. But you are not interested in >>differing data. You are more behaving like a clerical who wants to exert his >>power in a debate about the correct view. But this is not possible in field that >>is more connected to science. >> >>Please show your critics some respect because they have done a similar work you >>liked to do. Yours isn't worthier as such only because your name is aleways >>mentioned with the one of Gurevich. > > >I never claimed that my own data (work) are worthier than other one's. >Yesterday I wrote in CSS forum >(http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100864.htm): >"Ich behaupte (natürlich) nicht, dass Hagras Daten falsch sind - wie sollte ich >auch? ... Ich erlaube mir nur offenkundig falsche Behauptungen im CCC-Forum >klarzustellen" (in english: I don't claim that Hagra's data are wrong - how >should I? ... I only allow me to clarify apparent wrong claims/interpretations >about my own data). Yes, I read that and as I could show you misused my (admitted WRONG) translation of the Hagra message to bully Hagra's conclusions. How do you call this at home where you live, Manfred? Isn't it lame and dishonest if you take a weak translation, not even from the author itself, and then makingan empty response to that author? You must know that in CCC there are a lot of academics who understand such tricks as indecent. No, you didn't claim that Hagra's data was wrong, but you brought your own data for something Hagra hadn't said at all. BUT more important, for what he had really said you brought nothing at all - until this very moment! Is it because you dont have an answer or is it because want to hide your good answer? Why do you do such things? > > >> >>Please discuss Hagra's results and also mine now and stop distributing fairy >>tales in CSS. In CSS there is no open debate possible. Come here into CCC and >>defend your work against reasonable criticism. > > > >Please leave it to me in which computer chess newsgroup(s) I should discuss. >Yesterday you still complained here >(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?369998): "WHY did nobody in CSS, >where Hagra has published his results, discuss Hagra's data?". >And now - when I'm answering to Hagra in CSS forum - it's not good again!? Please, don't be so arrogant. When I wrote that you hadn't answered yet. If you had answered right now, you couldn't now object to my earlier statement. But anyway: you didn't answer yet. We differentiate reasonable answers on topic and answers on side aspects with excluding the main topics. You did the latter. > > > >We're not living in the Middle >>Ages with its exorcism. So, stop defaming your critics. >> >>Read my data for instance here: >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?370049 > > >I've got one question to your data: Look, Manfred Meiler! Please. If you inform me below that you do not want to openly debate here in the CCC but in CSS, and you ask _me_ questions, to me who is censored in CSS, you are behaving in a most indecent way. Do you accept that verdict? - Do you really think that you could make a good impression with such illogic here in such an international forum??? I don't think so. Please answer first of all to Hagra fair and straight if you recognize that the Hagra data is normally a totally unwanted result for the test authors of the "WM-Test". If you accept that then we can also debate in a fair climate about my own data. But you can't treat Hagra with your contempt and me with illogicisms. Either you want to debate fair and straight or you go hiding in your playing yard in CSS where no critical questions are allowed. And do also behave politely. Do NOT ask questions to someone who is censored in CSS just to tell him that you want to "discuss" in CSS but NOT CCC. Have you so much to hide, Manfred Meiler? =================================== Below I write a German appeal to Manfred Meiler who should talk with the critics in an open and fair debate here in CCC; that would be the best for the benefit of the "WM-Test". Either this test has a subtance or not. But if he has, it would only help if the critical propositions could be respected. If however it's more without worth then I would understand that one hides in a forum where critics are censored. =================================== >Which Fritz 8 engine did you use there? >Background of my question: I've tested 5 five different Fritz 8 engines in >WM-Test (Fritz 8.0.0.5, 8.0.0.8, 8.0.0.19, 8.0.0.23 and 8.0.0.26 - called Fritz >8, 8a, 8b, 8c, 8 WM-Edition in my Excel sheet). >Looking at this Excel sheet with my detailed WM-Test results of 230 engines on >AMD 1400 (http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm or an Fritz extract at >http://de.geocities.com/krennwurzn/amd2.htm) you'll see that for example Fritz >8.0.0.5 (called Fritz 8) in the test position 1 found the solution Re3 after >0:15 (depth 9/25), switched to Rad8 after 4:06 (depth 12/37) and came back to >Re3 after 8:57 at depth 13/36) - all this is documented in my complete Excel >sheet as comment to the specific Excel cell (recognizable by a red mark in this >EXCEL cell). > >So which of the 5 Fritz 8 engines did you test in >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?370049 ? >You could check this by looking at the properties of your file "Fritz 8.eng" (in >your ChessBase\Engines folder): version (in deutsch: Dateiversion) 8.0.0.xx > >The engine Fritz 8.0.0.23 (Fritz 8.eng from 2003 March 03rd, called "Fritz 8c" >in my Excel sheet) was the one Hagra refered to in his posts and at his site >http://de.geocities.com/krennwurzn/amd.htm. >And exactly with this Fritz version 8.0.0.23 yesterday I repeated my tests in >test position 1 and gave the results (all analyse lines) on AMD 1400 and P4-3.0 >here in CCC and in CSS - to clarify possible misinterpretations of my Excel >sheet (Fritz 8.0.0.23 results in WM-Test position 1). > >Further discussions about this topic I will continue (if needed) in CSS forum, >sorry ... where is no open debate possible :-) > >Reagrds, Manfred Wie gesagt, verehrter Manfred. Wenn Sie sich anständig verhalten, ohne arrogantes Gebaren gegenüber fairer Kritik, dann können wir doch hier einmal etwas ausdiskutieren - - um einem solch anspruchsvollen, ja wertvollen Unterfangen, wie dem "WM-Test" und insbesondere seinen Autoren und Testern zu helfen. Endweder ist der Test schon perfekt, dann wäre Kritik natürlich Blödsinn, wie das CSS-Team ja schon lange meint. Aber wenn es Schwachstellen gibt, dann müßten Sie doch eigentlich erfreut sein über die härteste Kritik, denn fragen Sie sich doch mal, was Sie anfangen wollten mit lauwarmer Kritik, die letztlich nicht weiterhilft! Lieber Manfred, Sie können jetzt ohnehin nichts mehr ändern. Entweder hat der Test Substanz, dann werden sich viele Helfer finden, hat er aber mehr Fehler als Substanz, dann wäre es doch besser, wenn die Energie von so vielen Leuten auf andere, lohnendere Themen umgeleitet werden könnte. Oder hängt irgendein Leben ab von dem Ansehen des Tests? So daß selbst Unlogik zur Wahrheit erklärt werden muß? Ich hoffe inständig, daß dies nicht der Fall ist. Zunächst geht es bei der derzeitigen Kritik ja bloß um eine einzige Stellung. Ich würde mich riesig freuen, wenn Sie einsehen könnten, daß eine offene Debatte nur in Ihrem eigenen Sinn sein kann. Bitte denken Sie doch nochmals über das alles nach und stellen Sie sich Ihren Kritikern. Sie können _nur_ gewinnen! Kritik ist immer hilfreich. Bloße Herummäkelei disqualifiziert sich von selbst! ;) MfG 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.