Alayan wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:31 am
chrisw wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:32 pm
Freaky! You're only signed up two months, that's a lot of anger there. In psychology it's called mobbing, btw. The supposed authority figures (two mods) give you the green light signals that rude abuse is okay on the target, so new sign up thinks he's okay with wild accusations, and besides everybody else is doing it, hey this is how to be part of the group! This is just a technical disagreement, get yourself some balance, kid. But no worries, I am very used to it, mobbing in computer chess is a thing. It's just a little psychopathic though, so, take it easy. Have a nice day,.
Hope you enjoyed trying to psycho-analyze me.
From before this thread, I actually didn't like much bob and hgm postings. Them being mods is completely irrelevant. When I read about hgm's method of not doing legality checking and letting ridiculous moves be done (even if very rarely) in the search tree as long as the engine stays crash-proof, it made me laugh. I'd not have expected to take their side in some argument.
You're calling me "freakily hostile", are you joking ? You're the guy who made post after post after post about how people who don't agree with your views on what is a bug and on "100% no bug" are lazy slouches that deserve to be fired.
well, there’s a difference here. I know Hyatt and hgm, in fact I met hgm a few months ago, wondering in passing if that might ameliorate things, but no. It’s okay that I “fire” either of them, is part of old battles, it references commercial/academic differences, it’s a joke that’s not a joke that is a joke and neither of them feels threatened, I think I can guarantee. I pick on the big guys not anybody else, and certainly not on new people I don’t know, unless they overstep, which IMO, you did with some pretty wild interpretations.
My previous message was confronting you to your own attitude in this thread, which you rightly guessed I dislike. I'll let others judge, but I don't think I crossed any decency bounds there. I do think that you read it as very hostile because of the light it puts you in and because it called your recent postings in this thread dishonest.
well, this word in itself is aggressive/hostile. Maybe you just don’t understand at what level I’m engaging? Maybe I’m acting as provocateur to shine some light on assumptive thinking here? Hgm knowingly lets his engine search non existent tree, did anybody know that earlier? There’s a high degree of investment in the concept of computer chess being on a complexity pedestal. Is that worth critique? I think so. You’re shocked by argumentation of taking the Hegelian opposite? It can be quite fruitful. But you call it “dishonest”. Well.
"get yourself some balance, kid" is a good example of hostility if you want one, with some patronizing on top.
Sure. If you take the decision to generate non benign interpretations from a position of no good historical knowledge, in the direction of someone who has zero idea who you ate, then you risk some comeback. Speak in normal tones.
This, or your ramblings
well, you deny green light or attention to the two mobbing green light signallers, but I’m afraid that’s one of their words and you’re behaving to their script.
on my signup date, are good examples of how you shift the argument from the claims to the people making the claims.
if you stuck to neutral language and non-personalisation there’ll be no problem, but it seems you can’t help yourself from using, what shall we call it? Non-neutral words. Ramblings, dishonest - this is the kind of OTT attack language I’m used to from Bob, you’ll get called out on it.
The discussion wasn’t difficult to keep neutral. Chess engines are on a continuum of simple-complex, nobody really knows the point where bugs get “inevitability” status no matter what, and nobody here seems to want to accept that “attitude” is important - if you think bugs are inevitable, they’ll be inevitable. If you don’t etc etc.
I don't think it's worth arguing further,
well, it wasn’t worth it in the first place. One case is that chess engines may or may not be inevitably bugged, no matter what. Is that resolved? No. And that computer chess is over-represented as highly complex, or not. Is that resolved? No. Are both questions connected to ideology and psychology. Yes, I would say so.
but hopefully things are clear enough for the onlookers.
Have a nice day too !