Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:08:08 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2006 at 11:55:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >I see it is your intention to go down the _same_ road you have gone down many >times previously... that is, arguing about a point that you have zero >understanding of. > >Do one of the two following things: > >(1) set up a position with any program you choose. Crafty will certainly be ok >for this. set the search depth to something that takes about 2 minutes total >time. Run the position with the default hash, and write down the time required >to finish that search. Double the hash and repeat. Double and repeat. >Continue doubling until the search time no longer decreases. Note that you >should use a normal middlegame position here, not a tactical position, not an >endgame position, as those magnify the problem and the typical case is more >important. Look at the search times you got, and then decide whether more hash >is trash, or whether more hash lets the program complete the same search in less >time, making it faster. Once you do this, you won't make such statements again. > >(2) simply shut up about this since you do _not_ know what you are talking >about. If you do (1) above, you will actually learn something important. > > Bob, in my opinion there are no stupid questions, because often the most stupidly looking allow the best answers. Here it seems to me as if you two are talking about different topics. Without a doubt you know the facts and the whole science of computerchess and also of a technical question like the one about hash size. IMO we shouldn't argue as if only sound questions could be allowed and that you control what is sound and what is not. I am convinced that we must consider the different starting points and also the intelligence of our members. You can't want to think that all those who follow your definitions are "good guys" and all who publish their possibly wrong ideas are the "bad guys". Because this way you would be misleaden about the true reasons of the motivation to believe you. You would miss that many could believe you for the wrong and misunderstood reasons, which couldnt be your vision of the top goal of a good teacher. In fact I would say that a good teacher must pay someone who then played the advocat of the devil by talking about seemingly correct but in truth false theories. You as a teacher had then a good chance to teach your audience, because in real many of the silent majority had these same false assumptions the devil's advocat were presenting. - In short: Where do you see the problem? That the level of quality would be decreased by such debates? Here I would see the opposite. A neutral observer would see how engaged you grasped the least idea to explain what is important for your field. Often anxious members seem to think that it's always evil if someone who doesnt know things like you do, Bob, asks simple questions. Because the danger is always stirring up confusion. This is IMO a completely false understanding of the process of learning things. I would also say that without mistakes we can't really learn something. Here actually Chandler, who's certainly a very independent thinker, also a bit older, certainly not willing by nature to digest what experts like you are saying. It's not the optimal situation for you as a teacher, but if you keep your calm you had an optimal chance to clarify things. Because until the proof of the contrary I take for granted that Chan isnt evil and doesnt intentiously twist things he knows better. If he says something wrong in your eyes, then it's because he thinks it thois way. And your task could be to show him why he must be wrong. But if you two are talking about different topics then the debate is about power in the end and not science. More than once Chan clarified that he is talking about the game of chess seen from human chessplayers. And I understood him as if he wanted to say that more and more hash cant prevent that machines/programs are busted by chess-in-born concretness of positions which could be foreseen by the human chessplayers and NOT by machines no matter with how much hash. - I agree with you that this is a completely different topic than the one you had in mind with your scientific result of experiments with the decrease of search time with more hash - up to a certain maximal point. - Sure in science at your seminary you would just conclude "missed topic". But here why not doing Chan the favor of explaining why he's completely off-topic, but that his topic is not completely uninteresting. I am convinced that such a forum here would profit from people like Chan if you as big expert and all your collegues could tolerate people like Chandler who does also enjoy CC - but from a different perspective. Intentiously or unconsciously being the devil's advocat. NB that I'm not a clairvoyant. I dont know what Chandler really is thinking and IF that is really of help for a specific topic, but I know you as the expert who does never suppress questions. Or is your understanding from a native speaker that you know that here with Chan something isnt working ok? Then say your reasons but please dont threaten the poor guy for his perhaps wrong ideas. Please. - I have no reasons to oppose a direct deletion of this message after you've read it and directly concluded that it wouldnt be helpful. Perhaps I'm missing the key point of the debate. But then it's because I'm not a native speaker... What I know for sure here is that nobody should be insulted by advising him to stop his medication or such things. I fear this way things get out of control. 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.