Author: gerold daniels
Date: 15:57:30 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2006 at 17:02:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 06, 2006 at 16:40:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 06, 2006 at 16:25:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2006 at 16:11:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 06, 2006 at 16:08:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>"There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people asking questions." -- Chris >>>Berman >>> >>>Actually, I don't think any of Chan's questions are stupid, the first or second >>>time that they are asked. But after they have been clearly and paitiently >>>explained for the tenth time, we must at least classify them as 'rather dim'. >>>IMO-YMMV. >>> >>>I have seen Chandler learn. But he often quickly forgets. I'm not sure if it >>>is intentional or not. >> >>What I was trying to explain is an aspect, that exists only in very specific >>situations. Someone who doesnt really think on his own cant go wrong so far. >>Someone not so experienced and old-aged wouldnt have the stamina to oppose such >>a fire. I would advise us to repect Chan's dignity as a human being with still a >>high motivation to enjoy CC in both groups. - I am convinced that Chan isnt the >>most stupid member who's asking the wrong questions. What I would like to show >>guys like you: even in science we had people with completely false theories and >>assumptions. I see Chan this way: his only fault is that he has no fear to be >>judged wrong or as a weak thinker. But in fact this is what we wanted to teach >>our youth because it shows the best of what we have, our particular >>individuality. We shouldnt focus such people with our hate... >> >> > > > >There is much more to this story than is known here. For example, he's claimed >that some of his posts are the result of drinking too much. Certainly >believable. He's also claimed to be 72 years old in addition to being drunk at >times. I think he's a young kid myself... > Hello Bob. Chandler will be happy to hear that he is a young kid. :) Gerold. > > > >>> >>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I wouldn't disagree with the above at all. However, there is more. Any >>>>question ought to be "askable". But once answered, with factual information, by >>>>someone that is familiar with the subject, that should be "that" unless >>>>additional clarification is needed. But in this case, it is just a "is too..." >>>>"is not..." sort of discussion. Chandler can't even read and follow a very >>>>specific experiment, asking me to post data that was already in the description, >>>>and then telling me my conclusion of XXX was wrong when I didn't have any such >>>>conclusion (about NPS). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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.