Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 11:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2004
Posts: 834
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes




I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.

In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?

He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
actually happened?

|
| http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...40adelphia.net
|
| Subject: Finally Science meets Computerchess (Take part in a new
| From: Philip Innes
| Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
| Message-ID:
| Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:34:54 GMT
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.50.111.61
|
| i worked for some time with robotics - in the end there was no processor of
| much worth for our applications, so we got rid of them as active devices
|
| conceptually we knew how a processor could be useful but there was no public
| AI information that indicated anyone knew how to do it
|
| so we made applications without a processor, it was approximately this:- we
| were developing a 3D real-time robotic mapping device for free-space
|
| [here, freespace means where there are no known, or simple no, external
| coordinates!]
|
| you might imagine this application in 'space', where any coordinates made
| have to be self-referencing, because you literally don't know where you
| are!, or in fact if there is anything to take an external coordinate from!
| laugh
|
| or imagine medical applications, where 3D mapping of peoples insides via a
| probe also 'in the dark' - this is an interesting means to inform
| reconstructive surgery, especially dental, since access is easy
| stress, real-time aspect of such mapping
|
| anyway, no computer, even theoretically would go fast enough to emulate
| enough data-points for 3D model, and no-one could imagine how programmed
| interogatories could deal with unknown landscapes, and computers are a bit
| heavy!
|
| eventually the device became a purely optical one, sources were multiple
| chopped-fanned-lasers, sensor was compound device [ of non-imaging optics +
| silicon detectors, [applications were in the visible ]]
|
| mapping was recorded via a processor, which became merely the clerical
| device so that 'replays or reviews' were posssible and the processor did in
| fact make no determination or contribute solutions of the vector/distance
| mapping
|
| resulting device [robot or probe] could move and simultaneouly map in
| self-referenced 3-space meanwhile attenuating noise [massive solar signal,
| and near IR residuals] to 1 part per 10million.
|
| tso!
|
| i'll bore you with another anecdote - this one shorter.
|
| cosmologists a princeton needed computation - fastest cray would take 2,000
| years to calculate results and would also be expensive to lease for that
| time, even for princeton
|
| so scientists built their own computer - they managed to understand that
| they did not need any digital features whatever - there was no valency
| necessary for their data, only a simple result - yes/no
|
| so they removed digital aspect of computer, which was the factor which made
| the cray so slow (!) and built shoe-box size device, cost $20,000 that
| yields results in 3 years
|
| {...]
|
| disgustful
|
| cordially, phil innes

  #2   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 11:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Guy Macon wrote:

I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.

In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?


Here's a handy hint: reality and Innes rarely pass each other at less
than a distance of a light year. On top of that, he is given to
behaving like a three-year-old. Don't waste your time.

That's free advice.

snip

Mark

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 09:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Macon, you seem like a clueless technologist - why did you invent some
supposed conversation with Robt Hyatt? Why did you start this thread? Your
ego is bruised because you didn't know something and bull****ted about it,
and several people have now called you. The questions were VERY simple
philosophy of science items.

Why do you doubt so much when you know little theory, when a moment's
attention to google would inform you of the terms you cannot admit? How come
you ask questions about commonplaces, and don't say why?

If you want to do some character assassination, then why even pretend it has
to do with anything other than your ego?

If the gentleman thinks such material below is openly avowable as to source,
then this is mere naivete. But why does he contest the issue at all? The
fact is that he does not like what I said about chess computers, and so
decides to deprecate the messenger. How novel on usenet! And how obvious a
strategm!

What I really doubt is that if he found out about any of these items - the
speed of a non digital computer, or a real-time optical robot - most of them
are googable, or even try scientific american's archive, but that there
would be the slightest change in his opinion of anything.

After all, you can challenge anything as long as nothing depends on it, and
some of the material below is not exactly undergraduate stuff.

Phil Innes


"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.

In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?

He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
actually happened?

|
|
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...40adelphia.net
|
| Subject: Finally Science meets Computerchess (Take part in a new
| From: Philip Innes
| Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
| Message-ID:
| Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:34:54 GMT
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.50.111.61
|
| i worked for some time with robotics - in the end there was no processor
of
| much worth for our applications, so we got rid of them as active devices
|
| conceptually we knew how a processor could be useful but there was no
public
| AI information that indicated anyone knew how to do it
|
| so we made applications without a processor, it was approximately this:-
we
| were developing a 3D real-time robotic mapping device for free-space
|
| [here, freespace means where there are no known, or simple no, external
| coordinates!]
|
| you might imagine this application in 'space', where any coordinates
made
| have to be self-referencing, because you literally don't know where you
| are!, or in fact if there is anything to take an external coordinate
from!
| laugh
|
| or imagine medical applications, where 3D mapping of peoples insides via
a
| probe also 'in the dark' - this is an interesting means to inform
| reconstructive surgery, especially dental, since access is easy
| stress, real-time aspect of such mapping
|
| anyway, no computer, even theoretically would go fast enough to emulate
| enough data-points for 3D model, and no-one could imagine how programmed
| interogatories could deal with unknown landscapes, and computers are a
bit
| heavy!
|
| eventually the device became a purely optical one, sources were multiple
| chopped-fanned-lasers, sensor was compound device [ of non-imaging
optics +
| silicon detectors, [applications were in the visible ]]
|
| mapping was recorded via a processor, which became merely the clerical
| device so that 'replays or reviews' were posssible and the processor did
in
| fact make no determination or contribute solutions of the
vector/distance
| mapping
|
| resulting device [robot or probe] could move and simultaneouly map in
| self-referenced 3-space meanwhile attenuating noise [massive solar
signal,
| and near IR residuals] to 1 part per 10million.
|
| tso!
|
| i'll bore you with another anecdote - this one shorter.
|
| cosmologists a princeton needed computation - fastest cray would take
2,000
| years to calculate results and would also be expensive to lease for that
| time, even for princeton
|
| so scientists built their own computer - they managed to understand that
| they did not need any digital features whatever - there was no valency
| necessary for their data, only a simple result - yes/no
|
| so they removed digital aspect of computer, which was the factor which
made
| the cray so slow (!) and built shoe-box size device, cost $20,000 that
| yields results in 3 years
|
| {...]
|
| disgustful
|
| cordially, phil innes



  #4   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 12:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Chess One wrote:

a lot of ****, as usual

I hate to break it to you, Phil, but you habitually assassinate your
*own* character, not least because of your tendency to avoid the truth,
and, worse, your tendency to behave like a three-year-old.

You give three-year-olds everywhere a bad name. I think that if I were
a three-year-old, and I knew what you were doing, I'd be miffed.

Have a nice day.

  #5   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 01:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Kingston admires and encourages more off-topic and diversionary abuse,
including passing over a complete invention of something purportedly I wrote
to Hyatt - then denying responses were made to a correspondent who cut them,
and continued to ask zzzz. But enough of him, he writes **** about everyone,
in public and private.

--------

I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!

Which strikes me as more like religion than science.

And since that seems demonstrably true from people's responses, I have now
exhausted my own curiosity about general interest or even knowledge in the
subject.

Philosophy is sometimes said to be the rescue of Ideas from words, but here
there are only words which so many people cannot relate to what the words
describe - so if the rule states that one cannot look-up [verb] and opening
book [noun] then simply by calling everything data or some generic phrase we
avoid both verb and noun, and the rules!

The last thing programmers seem willing to do is admit if they understand
the sense of not looking up reference material during the game - and while
they will analogous 'memory' they will not analogise what the program does
compared to the human player, who cannot look at reference material - since
for rating purposes, that's cheating!

If anyone is actually interested in a scientific engagement of the worth of
a computer engine, and also the worth of the book and endtables, as measured
in rating points, I encourage investigation of that activity, and would
write with them more.

But if programmers themselves cannot pass a Turing Test [new term!] and
differentiate or even understand emulation, then they should continue to
write that all is data, and virtual terms are the same as what they
describe, and analogies are the same as what analogised ['memory, book'
etc], and insist that the map is the territory, in fact a 1:1 ratio map, and
various other distractions and foibles with which they amuse themselves, but
no one else.

I am most interested in machines that play by rules which are ratable - and
less interested in Ferrari-paradigms which optimise strength at the expense
of legality. Therefore, not a comparison of the Ferrari with a foot-runner,
but a comparison of the machine with the rules.

This does not argue that chess engines should not include opening books, in
fact I have Rybka which is the strongest engine of all, plus a massive
opening index which is fun to play against. I have no objection to this
engine, and in fact sell it!

If others have no interest in the subjects I wrote about above, then they
can go the Kingston way - vague negative attributions without any address to
content - the behavior which has driven most anybody who likes to write on
chess subjects away from these newsgroups.

I am also in the way of promoting such an engagement as I mention above -
that means with real money! And certainly on the human side of things
several grandmasters have indicated an interest in it - all that is lacking
is interest from the chess computing community, a lack of curiosity about
their own productions which is the same now as 10 years ago.

I think that's a challenge from me, and from strong players, and also a
definition of the scope of my further engagement in these threads.

Phil Innes



"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 11, 4:54 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
Macon, you seem like a clueless technologist - why did you invent some
supposed conversation with Robt Hyatt? Why did you start this thread?
Your
ego is bruised because you didn't know something and bull****ted about
it,
and several people have now called you. The questions were VERY simple
philosophy of science items.

Why do you doubt so much when you know little theory, when a moment's
attention to google would inform you of the terms you cannot admit? How
come
you ask questions about commonplaces, and don't say why?

If you want to do some character assassination, then why even pretend it
has
to do with anything other than your ego?

If the gentleman thinks such material below is openly avowable as to
source,
then this is mere naivete. But why does he contest the issue at all? The
fact is that he does not like what I said about chess computers, and so
decides to deprecate the messenger. How novel on usenet! And how obvious
a
strategm!

What I really doubt is that if he found out about any of these items -
the
speed of a non digital computer, or a real-time optical robot - most of
them
are googable, or even try scientific american's archive, but that there
would be the slightest change in his opinion of anything.

After all, you can challenge anything as long as nothing depends on it,
and
some of the material below is not exactly undergraduate stuff.

Phil Innes

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote

I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.


In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?


He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
actually happened?


Guy, please notice that for all his verbiage above, Phil never
addresses your two questions at all, let alone supplies any relevant
evidence to answer them. As I said, Phil tends to be rather long on
talk and short on evidence.





  #6   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 02:00 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Chess One wrote:

his idiosyncratic brand of ****, as usual

I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!


On the contrary, the evidence suggests that you are the only one
AVOIDING a scientific investigation, as is your wont. When scientific
evidence is presented to you and, for whatever reason, your little
wormy brain tells you it's bad, you conveniently IGNORE it, and keep
banging the same drum.

Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.

You deserve opprobrium, but before you achieve that lofty goal, my
advice, FWIW, is that you might serve yourself well to leave the group.

Just a thought.

Put it in the background there, and throw it the occasional glance.

Have a nice day.

Mark

snippety-snip

  #7   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 02:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 630
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Guy Macon wrote:
I have a question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes AKA Chess One.

In the following post he claims to have "worked for some time with
robotics." Is there any independent evidence that he has ever
worked in robotics or any other engineering discipline?

He also relates an anecdote supposedly about some unnamed cosmologists
at Princeton. Does anyone have any evidence that the described events
actually happened?


Innes believes that everyone should accept all his assertions on faith.
If they don't... well, you'll see what happens.

  #8   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 06:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,305
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!



In that case, please *stop* talking about it until you have actually
done some testing and have some data to present.

Do you *have* any data to present?

Or, are you just "talking about it"?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 06:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Kenneth Sloan wrote:

Chess One wrote:

I am actually INTERESTED in chess computing, and want to know the effect or
worth of the opening book. By weight of response I appear to be in the
minority of those here who wants to know that by the scientific method of
actually testing it! rather than talking about it. ROFL!



In that case, please *stop* talking about it until you have actually
done some testing and have some data to present.

Do you *have* any data to present?

Or, are you just "talking about it"?



The smart money is on the second option, methinks.

-------------------------------

Diane: "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Woody: Ah! Miss Chambers... shouldn't that be: 'I think...'?

Diane: No, you see, Woody, there was this........
............yes, it should.

--Cheers (Paramount TV) Shelley Long as Diane, Woody Harrelson as Woody

  #10   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 07:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,980
Default Question about Philip Innes AKA Phil Innes


Mark Houlsby wrote:


Newsflash: The reason that Mr. Macon started this thread, is that he
has noticed this tendency. More and more people are noticing that you
are a jerk with no redeeming qualities.


He used a posting from five years agoto begin a thread? It is obviously
nothing more than an attempt to begin a flame war with Mr. Innes. It
also seems to me that this behaivor by Mr. Macon, who I know nothing
about, or you Mr. Houlsby is not unlike that of the character Joe in
the children's movie"How to Eat Fried Worms"

Talk to Zed instead:

http://tinyurl.com/s8ws3



You deserve opprobrium, but before you achieve that lofty goal, my
advice, FWIW, is that you might serve yourself well to leave the group.

Just a thought.

Put it in the background there, and throw it the occasional glance.

Have a nice day.

Mark

snippety-snip


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interview with CJA Award Winning Historian in The Chess Journalist The Historian rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 215 November 16th 06 08:34 PM
Phil Innes and the "Andean" language Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 15 September 27th 06 08:46 AM
Why are the Hardinge-Simpole titles priced the way they are? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 160 January 10th 06 01:25 PM
Why are the Hardinge-Simpole titles priced the way they are? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 163 January 10th 06 01:25 PM
Parr challenges Blair [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 201 January 3rd 06 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017