I removed a subthread where personal attacks were occurring. I will copy any genuine posts (only a couple) that went with them back to posters so that they can repost if they choose.
Unfortunately some of these posts quoted things that warranted removal (Harvey and Zach's posts regarding BB's identity). My apologies for that.
My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Some personal attacks removed
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
These percentages are very plausible for me. I don't know whether many non-programmers can follow but nevertheless I suggest to all interested members to reread what I already posted five weeks ago on that topic (EO subforum). Read especially my quite detailled comments on each of the points from Zach's pages under the heading "My details". If I had to match these 11 points with the 40-40-20 estimate by Vas then I would perhaps come to similar numbers as he did.K I Hyams wrote:“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.Sven Schüle wrote:I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.K I Hyams wrote:Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.Zach Wegner wrote:Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.Vasik Rajlich wrote: (5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.
Sven
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..
In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.
If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.
One note @Zach here: for me claiming that something is "wrong", or "standard CC concept" does not mean anything about your competence, and also nothing personal. I just try to keep as objective as possible. If someone would make 4 wrong statements out of 11 then this does not turn him "incompetent" at all. Just to let you know. EDIT: I see no reason why Vas should view this differently.
Sven
-
- Posts: 1204
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
So you kind of admitted that this thread belongs into EOF.Albert Silver wrote:you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.
Fine.
But it's still here.
Comments with a different opinion are usually moved within 10 minutes.
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Actually, I'm pointing out that you are jumping the gun.Alexander Schmidt wrote:So you kind of admitted that this thread belongs into EOF.Albert Silver wrote:you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.
Fine.
But it's still here.
Comments with a different opinion are usually moved within 10 minutes.
As a rule, instead of posting posts screaming bloody murder, there is a small red exclamation point ("!") that one can click on to report posts one believes warrant moderating. Moderators do not read each and every post. If you really want to draw their attention to what you view as a problem, report it.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 1204
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?Albert Silver wrote:Moderators do not read each and every post.
-
- Posts: 1204
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Alexander Schmidt wrote:You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?Albert Silver wrote:Moderators do not read each and every post.
gn, I goto sleep...
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Of course - this morning after I took a look. The thread to that point had remained all night, so was obviously fine with the other two mods. You can't realistically blame me for everything. We all have to sleep.Alexander Schmidt wrote:You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?Albert Silver wrote:Moderators do not read each and every post.
Besides, if this thread was to be moved there are a few others that would need to go with it. I'm not prepared to do that on my own.
Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:05 am
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Banks should move all messages from Jeremy to the secret society EOF since his sig has a link to the open chess forum and that forum may contain links to documents that cast huge doubt on the charge that ippo = rybka.Alexander Schmidt wrote:So you kind of admitted that this thread belongs into EOF.Albert Silver wrote:you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.
Fine.
But it's still here.
Comments with a different opinion are usually moved within 10 minutes.
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I'm not the moderator, but am trying to suggest good form: yelling in a thread is really not the way to go about it.Alexander Schmidt wrote:You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?Albert Silver wrote:Moderators do not read each and every post.
Anyhow, exceptions do occur especially at times of crisis. I was involved in such a crisis, and though election declarations and discussions were supposed to be redirected to the Help and Suggestions forums, the rampant accusations suggested this was a form of censorship and cover-up. As a result, we left them in the main forums for that period.
I am not saying this is the case here, but considering the nature of the current crisis and debacle, it would not surprise me if the mods had decided to leave this here, hopefully to let the members form their own opinions.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Now just wait till Rondo starts to own Rybka....K I Hyams wrote:“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.Sven Schüle wrote:I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.K I Hyams wrote:Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.Zach Wegner wrote:Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.Vasik Rajlich wrote: (5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.
Sven
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..
In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.
If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.
Peter