Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 20:02:17 01/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
>On January 07, 2000 at 10:57:55, Graham Laight wrote: <snip> >I just think >that those who advocate using the Century V GM series as a guide to top computer >strength would have been happier to read that Century had won the game 12-8, >rather than losing it by that margin. > >-g Hi Graham, There you go again. Maligning an entire group of people by imputing--without a basis--that they would rather have their personal opinions validated by empirical evidence than to seek or discover the truth by objective and unbiased gathering of empirical evidence even if it differs from their prior opinion. Sound like familiar behavior to you? It should. You do this all the time. In psychology, this behavior is called 'projection'. Attributing undesirable characteristics to other people that one fears most in himself. The people who say 'look to the Rebel matches for evidence' are countering the likes of you who happily promote opinions without much in the way of evidence or logic. They say that only comp-human testing, under rigorous conditions, will shed light on the dispute. It is you, not they, who would love to be vindicated by comp-comp match results that support your opinion that top programs are GM strength versus humans. Absent actual evidence by comp-human testing results, under rigorous conditions, to support your own opinion (and you have come up blank there so far), you would love to twist and turn each and every other event (even if illogically connected to the issue) to assert it supports your own unfounded opinion. So being the unbiased and fair fellow that you are, ahem, you fall back to the same old and deflated argument that a comp-comp result somehow bears value on the comp-human strength debate. No proof, mind you, but it sounds good, doesn't it--to your own ears. Even better, you allude that a particular comp-comp result will somehow make your detractors feel bad, if comp A beats comp B, or the reverse. Wrong! It is not they who argue that comp-comp results have meaning in the comp-human debate. It is you who have fallen prey to that fallacy. You are merely trying to smear them with the muck with which you have smeared yourself. Sadly for you, the muck doesn't stick to those you fling it at--they don't care a whit about comp-comp results in their quest for measuring the true strength of comps versus humans. You think you are pulling the wool over sheep's eyes. However, these sheep have seen the mud and know how to avoid it, unlike more ignorant creatures that often are befouled by the paths they choose. But you don't stop there, do you. You can't resist trying to twist the needle a little more, to prick those who disagree with you. You have to impute emotional attachment to 'vindication' in your gainsayers (ahhh, projection at its finest!), to demean their character in some manner and establish the hoped for bias that makes you feel superior. As pointed out before, you demean *yourself* with your antics. Again you hoist yourself with your own petard (that petard must be getting pretty worn out--you might wish to order a few new ones). You try to smear your opponents by having the pot call the kettle black. You fabricate the presumption that your opponents actually care about a comp-comp result (when it is really you who believes it matters), such that a particular comp-comp result (A beats B, or B beats A) would make them feel bad and lead them to doubt their claims about computers not being GM strength against strong human opponents. So your circular reasoning, devoid of logic in the first place, seeks to place your own inadequacies on other decent human beings. Once again, the circle closes and you are left facing yourself. Once again, a feeble attempt boomerangs onto the initiator--you. You created the stink, it sticks to you, and you can't rid yourself of it that easily by complaining about the odors of others. It is yourself you are smelling. Your constant tirade of besmirching remarks reminds me of a snotty child trying to start a fight. You go as far as you possibly can to bait others (we call this trolling on ICC and other websites) and then you smirk and smile and blame them for any and all misunderstandings. Good job, by the way--you are much more subtle and congenial than other trolls, although just as repugnant. You are very good a taunting. Ever think of being an attorney? You would be ecstatic at cross-examining a hostile witness when the judge gives you a rather free hand. What will it be next? Oh, I know--you will again rely on Selective Search figures, again without documenting the basis for those hybrid ratings (comp-comp mixed with comp-human results), and surely you will again blithely mix up comp-human results at fast time controls to support your opinions about comp vs human strength at slower tournament controls (40/2). Will you repeat your slanders about people's motivations, solely to keep your fires fueled? I believe so. By all means, get those new petards ordered now! I recommend the striped ones, the black and white ones. You don't want to be hoisted by the same old ones, do you? And you'd stink a whole lot better in new clothing, wouldn't you? Value-added postings. The New Year's resolution for 2000. A worthy goal for us all. Laighten up, will you! --Steve Boak :)
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.