Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:25:50 09/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2005 at 17:35:26, Thorsten Czub wrote: >yes. Jaap has problems with deciding the fair sports stuff. he always finds a >trap where to fall into. > >is that by will or stupidity ? the answer is clear. since he's a veritable professor, stupidity is not a first class assumption. but I wouldn't insinate bad will either. so what is it in truth. something we see more than once in computerchess. academic titles are of big importance in the eyes of the naive crowd, at least this is what certain academics think. what is happening in such cases? there is a veritable academic and it's even better if it is a professor or doctor. let's take only four examples: Dr. Donninger, Prof. Althöfer, Prof. Jaap v.d. Heringk. Finally another Professor, Bob Hyatt. Let's take a look. Chrilly Donninger ================== His academic talents didn't result in higher successes in computerchess. NIMZO wasn't bad but inferior to other progs like REBEL or FRITZ. Now with HYDRA it's still not his academic education but his political convictions which led to the engagement with the Arab World. In many of his messages for the German forum CSS he shows a low level in special if he makes it quick, often he shoots himself into his knees. He goes in anger and comes back as if he was a new-born. All in all the backwardedness from his beloved Waldviertel in Austria is more important for Chrilly than his academic title. Type: "Waldschrat" or "Kauz". Ingo Althöfer ============= You can't become professor in maths without a brillant mind. That must be said to exclude stupid misunderstanding. Most academics have that mind. Question is how far it goes. Maths is a theoretical passtime. Completely abstract. And here is the source for traps over and over. Look, we all once played with a little computerprogram in our chessclubs and it was fun. So, a brillant mind is on three programs at a time with light-speed. You could also think of four or five, but normal chesstables in clubs are limited to two machines pro player/operator. ThreeHirn=Bran was born. Now, it wasn't difficult to advance the idea and then challenging veritable Grandmasters. NB!! The idea is hidden in the unconcious of a human brain. It goes like this "If I am smart enough to become professor in maths, it's easy to get on same height with chess grandmasters, if I could exclude my inborn fallacies as a patzer player, if computers would prevent my own patzers. Then I were as strong as super GM because I know many things from chess. If the progs play their faultless moves and I as the master of decision have the chance to interfere once or twice in a game then I can become equal to super GM. With the same logic I could play Dreihirn against DEEP BLUE and different to Kasparov I would defeat DB thanks to my faultless play and the one or two human interventions." That is complete hybris because without the experience of the years of learning the many thousands of chunks and their psychological embedding in the game of human chess you cannot play like a super GM even if you have computerassistance. With 1800-1900 you have the idea of real chess but NOT the experience. This is like active and passive knowledge which is sharply seperated as we all know. Since it's about several here I must shorten the analysis. - Just a short comment on Ingo's book. The quality of all his work is depending of the quality of the experimental design of his Dreihirn-experiments. And the worst disadvantage is that Ingo simply has no exact protocol for his own decisions in his games. He has afterwards comments on some positions but this has no relevance in science. It could all be depending on the results of the games. Of course Ingo could have made exact protocols during his games. But it wasn't worth and most of all it was fun to play at all. But this way we don't have knowledge how, when and why Ingo played this or that. - Basically we must judge Ingo's attempts as interesting but for a scientist suprisingly on a low level. See Chrilly above. A further factor is Ingo's difficulties in CSS forum in the direct communication with other members. Ingo differentiates between friends, known members and unknown members, and the latter must call him with the somewhat subalternate "Sie" in German. And if they call him Professor, Ingo reacts by exactly describing how he wants to be called. All this is very low level and somewhat making him a "Kauz" too. Jaap vd H. ========== Perhaps it will surprise you that I tell you that I have known Jaap as an absolutely friendly man with a very helpful attitude to strangers. Because when I communicated with him he didn't know who I was. So the above you can take for granted. Jaap is without the slightest form of arrogance AND STILL you can feel that this man has a very high education and that he is typically for certain academics hiding his best talents. He's the nanny at ICGA tournaments. And this again explains why Jaap makes so many mistakes. because he's very easily to be activated and without too much thoughts he tries to solve the situation in the manner he probably already did it when he was 15 years old. That is his bright side of personality. I would never assume any bad intentions in this man. But of course he's absolutely the wrongest man as a tournament arbiter. Because between his nature and his academic education there is no linkage in such fast decisision processes. He acts as if people around should accept that he makes the right decisions as a Professor. But this exactly isn't true. - If you once have seen Jaap handling the many editions of the beloved Journal, then you get a slight idea what really makes the fun for this man. Because the Journal is the apartment for infinite history while the actual tournaments are the emotional bath of public respect. Of course Jaap is completely untalented to be a PR man for his own Journal. Because he follows the principle who knows us will ask for new meals. The rest of humanity is of no interest. Any form of direct PR would violate the spirit of a Dutch Professor who's flying high in the sky with so little friends at his side. If he couldn't rely on his principles and beliefs life would become without sense. I like such people beyond their incredible rate of disasters. My verdict: Euwe in disguise but with the typical same charm of a Dutch big boy who will always remain 15. Say 18 to exclude forbidden fantasies. Bob Hyatt ========= There is nothing much to say. All the findings and verdicts above are absent in this man. He is the best example of a teacher and scientist and sportsman. Not only has he won several time the World title in computerchess, but then he's also teaching the basics of computer sciences at his university. In endless activity he taught many if not all of us exactly what we asked for. In comparance with all the above Bob has not the slightest ideosyncratic tick. Except his dedication to public lectures to a stubborn public. I'm too little in American education but this attitude perhaps is the trade mark of American founder spirit that was always directed towards the principle talent of human kind to improve step by step with sometimes smallest steps to be exact. I must honestly say that Bob Hyatt is the only academic I know in the active scene who's NOT here to cure his own ego but who must really be happy at the end of the day if he has helped to improve other people's ego and so informing about computerchess. If the Law in the USA were different and if academics could make money with their creations (see Crafty) Bob would be the richest man of the whole scene! But also without this incent he lives computerchess like Jaap, but with a lot less mistakes. ;) I hope that the readers could learn something about different choices that academics could make. Mainly they are all enriching us in our field. Even with their faults. Of course the above was my personal choice and others are free to make a different ranking. But one thing should be clear to come back to your question. Bad will or bad intentions could be excluded in all of the examples above. It's just our different personalities.
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.