Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:04:51 01/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2006 at 11:43:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 17, 2006 at 10:42:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 16, 2006 at 12:54:04, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>On January 16, 2006 at 05:49:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 16, 2006 at 04:05:35, Fabien Letouzey wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 14, 2006 at 17:50:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If you think "mobility" is what makes fruit, you are _sadly_ mistaken. >>>>> >>>>>Hi Bob, >>>>> >>>>>I'd love to hear your opinion on this one! >>>>> >>>>>Fabien. >>>> >>>> >>>>Let me write in openess how this looks. Excuse me it just seems so trivial. If I >>>>were Bob I wouldnt answer people without profile or known names at all. But Bob >>>>is known for his friendliness. He answers everyone. I wouldn't play around with >>>>it. Why dont you come into openess and write what YOU are thinking? Why asking >>>>Bob about his opinion? If everybody would have the same frankness and ethical >>>>standards like Bob we all had a better talking climate, believe me. >>>> >>>>Please dont take this as a personal attack. If I had seen you this way I wouldnt >>>>have addressed the problem to you. I did it because I have the highest possible >>>>opinion about you. And I am almost certain that you are not here to belittle >>>>someone like Bob. And because I am certain I told you now how that looked like. >>>> >>>>You are away for weeks and you come after Bob made such a bonmot. Instead of >>>>clarifying things you ask him for his opinion but you want to insinuate that >>>>this opinion in the bonmot was wrong. Is this the case, Fabien? >>>> >>>>Perhaps you know that I am really not a programmer. I'm just a chessplayer who >>>>plays with chessprograms. Please let's not take this into deep in case I have >>>>misunderstood something. Of course I'm absolutely ignorant about the relation >>>>between you and Bob. I am sure not the one to decide how FRUIT is working. <g> >>>> >>>>I am a psychologist and saw something in your short remark. If I'm wrong I >>>>apologize in advance. But if I had seen something correct then please try to >>>>correct it, please. >>>> >>>>In slight tension waiting for your future plans for FRUIT, >>>> >>>>Rolf >>> >>>As an observer, I wish to comment. >>> >>>I read Fabien's question to Bob and took it exactly the opposite. >>> >>>Fabien was curious about an expert's opinion of his program in regards >>>to the mobility and generally the strength of Fruit. >>> >>>I did not see it as baiting, critical or anything of the like. We all >>>know Bob is legendary for achievements, approach, and selfless >>>interest in other computer chess programmers. I would venture that >>>more people world-wide have benefitted from Bob's comments about >>>computer chess than any other living (or dead) cc expert with the >>>exception of Claude Shannon. It is unprecedented that a former >>>2x-world-champ (in anything) steps down to help others as much >>>as Bob. You just don't see it. >>> >>>I don't think anyone is foolish enough to bait Bob as we all know that >>>a) he knows what he is talking about c-o-l-d and b) he is perfectly >>>able to defend himself. >>> >>>Most professor types I know, and my best friend is a senior dual professor >>>in the U.C. system here in California, are very able to argue at all levels >>>up and down with anyone. In their areas of specialization be very careful >>>about your contradictions because you will have to prove your point very >>>well indeed. They live and breath the stuff of debate and argument as much >>>as lawyers in court. >>> >>>Beyond this, Fabien's publication of Fruit code was openness incarnate. >>>He earned his ability not to have to become "another Bob". Let Fabien >>>be Fabien please. >>> >>>Both closed and open are right and necessary in the universe. >>> >>>Go study the I-Ching and Yin-Yang Rolf. >>> >>>Stuart >> >> >>Hehe. Good one. >> >>I read that only once and still have the sound in my ears. Ok, you have >>certainly a point but it doesnt function here, sorry. There is this sound in the >>air and I know for sure what's going on. Of course I want allowed to make a >>complete brain surgery, so I cannot know exactly what you have in mind, but this >>here doesnt function. And you give away the reasons by yourself. >> >>If you would mean that Bob is extraordinarily open and smooth to everybody on >>all levels possible then a) you would know that I am preaching that sermon day >>and night and b) that then your comparison with professors from the West coast >>is illogical. Because after the first semester math lesson that if all birds are >>black, a black bird isnt a real surprise! ;) >> >>Bob already answered Fabien and he did it exactly how it should be done. Without >>even mentioning any side aspects or motivations for the question as such. Great >>tennis so far! >> >>Now to Fabien. You say that he gave open source at least, so his openess is >>proven, why then my little comment? Exactly because of that little incident. >>Fabien gives a whole prog in open code and then asks Bob, the World Champion, to >>comment on factor mobility. How that shouldnt play a role in Fruit. How could >>Bob say that this way to the former writer? Very funny! Not that I could >>understand Bob's answer/explanation technically, but what I understood well was >>that Bob had given a very deep answer which even Fabien couldnt quite get. >>Although he's the author of Fruit code. Funny. The point is that Bob saw that >>mobility, of course, is important in Fruit, but that this is not the key factor. >>That sounds as if someone created a masterpiece and then the expert comes to >>explain to the artist how he had done it and the artist is (comletely) >>surprised. Because this is clear, his question was NOT neutral but insinuated >>that Bob must have made some sort of confounding the aspects. >> >>With all this I dont doubt with a single iota the class of Fabien in programming >>code. I dont even know, simply because I dont know him personally, how much >>irony was in his question; irony or just fun. >> >>I know quite well that I dont have the standing to even talk to a successful >>programmer. But then Bob anyway and also Vasik both say a word here and there. >>That is cool indeed. >> >>But now having written this and having Bob's answer in mind I can well >>understand another aspect of Fabien's question. Yes, it's so seldom that real >>experts are talking about the product details of others. I was well surprised to >>read Chrilly on Rybka and here the author of Fruit expected with happiness Bob's >>reaction. I can even better understand that when I look back to my own little >>creation of a simple test position (NB I have never before and afterwards >>created a studie in chess) for computers. I was more than eager to see the >>reactions of the many experts. Positive or negative doesnt matter. Just as a >>feedback. I think only a genius isnt interested in such low matters. Well, this >>is leading to a different topic now. :) > > >I'll add my $.02 just for fun. I didn't read his question as an insult. Nor as >provocative. Nor as anything other than "what do you think?" > >He might actually know the answer to his question, and wanted to see what I >thought the answer was, to see what kind of impression someone might form after >looking at his program play games. He might not know the answer to the >question, and is curious what others think the answer is. Or somewhere in >between. > >I didn't take any offense at it and simply tried to answer as best I could. I'd >bet Fruit with or without mobility would play reasonably similar chess, assuming >he didn't do what I did in the very first Crafty versions and used nothing but >mobility for pieces, until I had time to write other code that slowly replaced >mobility for some pieces. Obviously removing mobility from a program that does >nothing else is going to wreck it. But I don't believe Fruit does that from >watching its games... I have an interesting question for you and all here. Who said that it were a pity that the moment someone goes commercial he's no longer contributing, even no longer debating here? No need to answer, we all know who that was, and in that spirit I addressed Fabien. Is his time or motivation really so little that he asks you just a little question? Why isnt he addressing his many fans about what he's planning now after Rybka appeared? What is he thinking? That would be great. Then we were a real community. Yes, you are a teacher through and through, all others made their profit of your many explanations and you never complain, no matter what happens, but it would really make my day if once in a while someone came with something new and then asked you and then you also could profit from these many young programmers. Am I dreaming? Is it just wishful thinking? (Just to remind the crowd of our school days. Of course we all love-hated our teachers. We nagged them. And later we understood that it was mainly our own projection that made all kind of devils out of those teachers. Now we are no longer students and we shouldnt go into that mode back. But then the little nitpicking after Graz showed me that many here fall back into their own past when they somehow must treat you impolitely or just unkind. No matter if already family fathers or professors themselves...)
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.