Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 09:53:24 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 11:44:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 19, 2004 at 10:34:40, Jonas Bylund wrote: > >>>Now you're doing exactly what you accused me to do. This is funny. But I won't >>>bite. Surprised? :)) >>> >>>Next time if you appeared in a real debate, then I would well want to address >>>your ideas. >>> >>>Till then have fun. >> >>Well you very gracefully forgot to mention that i have actually contributed >>actively to computer chess and still do to some degree (these days i mostly read >>this forum), this however does not mean that i can't adress you where you are. > >Yes, I wouldn't even think that there were any connection between the two >aspects. I am also very certain that if you do computerchess that then you can >also well address me, because my sole interest in all that is the science >aspect. And that shouldn't sound arrogant. Although a bit off-topic I thank you >for these questions here and below. > For me, and what made me reply is that personally i think it comes across as if you only concentrate on the _faults_ in the science behind compchess and that sometimes looks like your are only interested in arguing instead of exchanging ideas which has a destructive v contructive value. > >>Using a different language/approach when addressing someone is very common and >>even recommendable, this way that person have a greater chance of understanding >>you. > >Depends. Normally if you really want to persuade someone it's best to use the >language he speaks himself. I dont know exactly from your English if you meant >the same. > I was not out to persuade you or anyone for that matter, but what you said in your own words was what i said/meant. >> >> Now you say: "that i do exactly what i accused you of doing" well that is right >>of course if you haven't read my initial post to you in this thread, the >>difference, and this is where you are wrong, is that i am not doing it all the >>time and that was my point... > >I dont understand this statement. What did you do NOT all the time, what you >insinuate ME to do all the time? I think we have a misunderstanding for sure. >I hope you won't lose yourself in a position where you are arguing that you are >INTO computerchess for several reasons while I am OUT because I do never >contribute any test results or stuff like that. Because then you simply miss >what could be ALSO a very reasonable interest into computerchess. Computerchess >is coming out of the science of computer sciences. And I've been thinking about >such questions for almost three decades. I'm interested in the soundness of the >arguments. You must not share that onterest but I hope you dont reject it as a >possible interest just because you dont understand it. That would be second best >at least - so to speak. Know what I mean? Well first of all, i am not trying to determine what is right and what is wrong in general, i only think that in terms of contribution to this forum; providing findings based on programs playing abilities, finding bugs, possible better settings, gathering results based on different scenario's, analysis, chess programming tips and tricks etc is more _on-topic_ in this forum and valuable in terms being put to practical use, than discussing the science aspects, that's all. It is nice to hear where your interest (science) is, i was not aware of that, it would just be nice and refreshing to see you use some of that energy on some of the positive aspects once in a while. >All the critics, who accuse me of doing "only" this or that but NOT "this" miss >the debate. Everything is open to open debates. And it's not reasonable to >become angry just because someone asks questions to you if you just doing your >private thing. I'm not saying that you argue this way but it's a common nonsense >I must read in special from my German countrymen. They say that they want to >enjoy their hobby and they dont want to be disturbed by difficult questions by >someone who does not enjoy the same what they do. Know what I mean? The latter >is a very premature position. > I know what you mean, but when you give critique you should also be prepared to get some critique as well, and that probably means not always being right, and sometimes admitting when you are not. >> >> Whenever someone gives you critique you seem to throw it right back at them >>using the same logistics as your main line in your points of "counter" critique, >>this way you have some chance of avaoiding admition to being wrong, not very >>clever, but effective none the less. > > >So, you do decide how clever my arguments are? If that is true then I will >certainly read all your messages because I must get these informations about my >own faults. So, please go on, I will be very pleased to read you. On the other >side I must admit that I dont get it what you are saying. I read that you think >I should behave not so clever, and I should also let others win others also if >they had the weaker arguments... I admit that this is a new argument for me. > No of course i don't decide the level of cleverness in your arguments in general, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a very bright person, i was only addressing your _way_ of responding (in that regard only) to my initial critique. >> >>Rolf when i reply to someone, wether that be positive or negative critique or >>just a neutral observation, i never do so in order to make someone "bite" i >>simply just don't think that way, on the contrary i hope to start a dialouge and >>since you have so much critique in general about a lot of things _concerning_ >>issues related to computer chess, i find it peculiar that you show such >>resistance to answer critique of your behaviour from others in an open forum. > > >Yes, I agree with you. But note, please, if you insult me, you can't expect that >I reply as if you were a friendly person who deserved such replies. Until now, I >must admit I couldn't read a single message from you that would contradict >anything I had written. So, by definition you did never get a direct message >from my side. Note also, that if I address someone and give counter arguments, >this is NOT meant arrogant and negative towards the addressee. > I am very neutral when giving critique, i _very_ rarely say anything to anybody to insult them and if i do i almost always apologize afterwards, in this case i had no intention to insult you, i just gave you some critique based on my observations, kind of what you do with the science of chess :) >> >>I have a couple of questions: >> >>1) Do you ever feel you are wrong when having a discussion (here)? >>2) If yes, do you ever openly admit it and correct yourself? >> > >You do completely miss my interest. My science interest leads me to doubt if I >always made the best arguments to convince others. In that view you could assume >I am thinking about mistakes. But beyond that, I'm NEVER in debates like >SHREDDER is BETTER than FRITZ or the reverse. So, I can't remember of being >wrong in a factual sense. Please try to understand what my interest really is. I >follow a debate and see some logic applied. Then suddenly I discover a terrible >and fundamental error/ fault. On that level I'm debating. I do never discuss >things because someone I dont like said something etc. Know what I mean? > >In the actual debate about the CSS-WM-test I couldn't be wrong because all >experts I know said the same I thought but my concern always was how could I >discuss so that true defenders of that test could suddenly realise why their >test is under attack. And therefore I called it my ""solution" when O wrote my >message today. I think I could now show the exact reason for our >misunderstanding each other. You see? Now I'm happy just for myself. But that >has nothing to do how others react on my message. I'm not responsible for the >nonsense others believe. But if I could convince only one single reader that the >attitude of the CSS team in their forum with the exclusion of one Hagra is FALSE >and EVIL - then I had done a good work. But my message would also be good if >NOBODY could understand me. It would only tell me something about the general >level I should adopt to clarify what I mean. But I don't fear for a second that >real experts don't understand me. > Your interest does not clear you of being wrong from time to time, no matter what your approach to compchess is, you are as likely to make mistakes as anyone else. For example when you write your observations here, then because you have thought long and hard about them, does not mean that they are right, statistically you must have been wrong atleast once or twice ;) I would like to make this clear: i was not addressing your points on the CSS issue, i was addressing your behaviour as it came across to me in contrast to compchess, that does not make me right and you wrong by default of course, that is why we have this talk. > >>I might be completely wrong in my observations concerning your behaviour or >>other aspects for that matter, but this is what i see and unless you are willing >>to answer my questions/views (not just the 2 specified questions above) then >>this is not a debate. >> >>Jonas > > >We should be patient and wait until we meet again in a topic where we are both >interested. Then we will see how we can talk together. Let's remain optimist. Well the science behind anything/everything interests me, so maybe we do have a common ground :)
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.