Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:39:20 11/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 15:04:13, Chris Duggan wrote: >Over the last few days, I've read the posts that have flown back and forwards >between you and Bob. I had no particular 'side' in the debate before; as I >presume is the case with most people, but some of the posts you have made are >beginning to change my mind. > >The title of one of your posts was, 'A Crippled TIGER is still much better than >a full strength CRAFTY' On reflection, don't you consider that was just a >little arrogant? > >You later wrote... > >>"Now take some guy that collects all the known working algorithms,puts them all >>together in a program named Crafty, and makes the sources public. >>Well, that's a nice idea. Thanks a lot. It is a fine pedagogic tool." > >and... > >>"Remember, your program is at least 100 elo points behind ours. Each of us has >>done at least 10 times more creative work than you have. You have spent 30 years >>on this and you are still well behind." > >If i had done as much work on Computer Chess as Bob has, i would be _extremely_ >offended by these last posts. Are you implying that he's never made anything >wothwhile?? You have done _10_ times as much work as Bob? Sounds to me like >your being a little arrogant again... > Please stop at this point. My reasoning for not responding was simple. Some statements are so out-of-this-world that they simply don't deserve any reply at all. Why? Simple... the "30 year" statement was just ridiculous. Drop by my office in Birmingham, I can show you two WCCC 1st place trophies, plus a dozen ACM first/second/third place trophies. Pretty obvious I did something right. And pretty obvious that the person making that statement has _no_ such results. Ergo, I felt no response was justified. Thereis no need to drag this out. Crafty is playing fine. I am not unhappy with my "lack of progress". Don't get bent out of shape. :) >When people criticised the tone of you 'crippled TIGER...' post, you replied... > >>What I find funny is that some people feel the need to tell me my post was a >>little bit provocative, but these people did not open their mouth on your >> "if you are implying this you are full of snot". > >This is a good point. There is a subtle difference between your comments and >Bob's. Bob writes _'if'_. He doesn't say: Amir, you are full of snot, he >says, when provoked, '_if_ you are accussing me of lying, you are full of snot. >Neither does he belittle Amir or yourself, as you do in two of the abpve quotes. > >As I see it, and i stand to be corrected, Amir implied that Bob had >intentionally programmed unsporting behaviour into Crafty, in the attempt to >gain ICC rating points. >This annoyed Bob. I don't believe there are many people that it wouldnt incense >if the slur was addressed to them personally. > >In another post, you say that Bob posts in a patronising way. >Surely saying... > >your program is at least 100 elo points behind ours. Each of us has >done at least 10 times more creative work than you have. You have spent 30 years >>on this and you are still well behind." > >is patronising to Bob?? > >I don't know how and if you will reply to these points. If i'm wrong about >them, please correct me. I'm sure that you did not intend to create the >impression that you did with me. Its probably just my problem with reading >them. >It seems that when arguments like this start, the bad sides of everyone are >brought out. Bitterness provokes bitterness, and mis-interpretation makes this >even worse. > >This isn't a personal attack, i just thought you might want make your views >clear, if what i have written here isn't the correct interpretation.
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.