Comments on ICCAJ v.19 n.4

[Steven J. Edwards]

A few comments on the current (V.19 n.4) issue of the _ICCA Journal_:

The article "Experience is a Hard Teacher" by Tony Marsland references
PGN on page 265 under the section "User Interface Issues". There are
two minor typos:

1) In the second sample game, Black's 7th move should be "O-O-O"
(upper case letter "O") and not "0-0-0" (digit zero). The other
castlings in both sample games are correct.

2) In the second sample game, there should appear a game termination
marker "*" at the end of the move text to match the value of the
preceding Result tag value.

Journal subscribers should take note of the offer for the proceedings
of the ACC8 conference appearing on page 278. My experience is that
these books are hard to get from commercial sources, so it may be
a good idea to get this one through the ICCA.

Also, congratulations is in order for Bob Hyatt as winner of the
1995-1996 Novag Award as announced on page 276.

-- Steven (s...@mv.mv.com)

[brucemo]

Steven J. Edwards wrote:
>
> A few comments on the current (V.19 n.4) issue of the _ICCA Journal_:

>[snip]

> Also, congratulations is in order for Bob Hyatt as winner of the
> 1995-1996 Novag Award as announced on page 276.

Yes!

bruce

[Robert Hyatt]

brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:

: Yes!

: bruce

Funny thing is, I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve the
award. hmmm...

Can't be my great wit posting here I hope... :)

[Ed Schröder]

From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

: Yes!

: bruce

With making public your sources and your support in RGCC you have given
many aspirant chess programmers the chance to create their own chess
program in the most convinient way.

Keep up the good work, but don't make Crafty too strong... :)
Ok?
No chance huh?... :)

Congratualations with your award, you deserved it!

- Ed -

[Tom Crain]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Steven J. Edwards wrote:
>>
>> A few comments on the current (V.19 n.4) issue of the _ICCA Journal_:
>>[snip]
>> Also, congratulations is in order for Bob Hyatt as winner of the
>> 1995-1996 Novag Award as announced on page 276.
>
>Yes!
>
>bruce

Congratulations Bob! Friendly regards, Tom

[brucemo]

Robert Hyatt wrote:

> : > Funny thing is, I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve the

> : > award. hmmm...
>
> : > Can't be my great wit posting here I hope... :)

I don't have my copy of the ICCAJ yet. Does anyone care to post a
summation of the article?

bruce

[Robert Hyatt]

Ed Schröder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

: brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: : Steven J. Edwards wrote:
: : >
: : > A few comments on the current (V.19 n.4) issue of the _ICCA Journal_:
: : >[snip]
: : > Also, congratulations is in order for Bob Hyatt as winner of the
: : > 1995-1996 Novag Award as announced on page 276.

: : Yes!

: : bruce

: > Funny thing is, I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve the
: > award. hmmm...

: > Can't be my great wit posting here I hope... :)

: With making public your sources and your support in RGCC you have given

: many aspirant chess programmers the chance to create their own chess
: program in the most convinient way.

I'm not sure about the above any longer. Bruce Moreland and I have discussed
this many times, and both tend to agree that Crafty is no longer the "perfect
beginner's tool" because once you make something competitive, it becomes
complex at the same time...

I'd like to write another program, just for beginners, that is much simpler,
and way under 10K lines of code...

That would be a real contribution...

: Keep up the good work, but don't make Crafty too strong... :)

[Komputer Korner]

brucemo wrote:

>
> Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
> > : > Funny thing is, I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve the
> > : > award. hmmm...
> >
> > : > Can't be my great wit posting here I hope... :)
>

> I don't have my copy of the ICCAJ yet. Does anyone care to post a
> summation of the article?
>
> bruce

There were 3 articles, 2 by Tony Marsland and 1 by the board of the
ICCA. The first article by Tony is an example of how different
cultures will never understand each other and how wars will always
reign supreme on our planet. To we westerners, the article seems like
a fawning [sic] diatribe to the graciousness of the hosts. I realize
that that is what is expected in their culture but don't ask me ever to
participate in a kiss your ass type of admiration that that article
represents. The 2nd article by the board represents the ICCA side of
the story. I have no reason to doubt their version of events despite
what I have read in r.g.c.c. The 3rd article by Tony dives into the
history of the amateur/professional conflict and the other problem
of minimum standards for each program. Nothing new here but a good
summary
of the situation. As an example of no standards, some of the programs
couldn't even provide a game score in electronic form.
--
Komputer Korner

The komputer that kouldn't keep a password safe from
prying eyes, kouldn't kompute the square root of 36^n,
kouldn't find the real Motive and variation tree in
ChessBase and missed the real learning feature of Nimzo.

[brucemo]

Komputer Korner wrote:

> There were 3 articles, 2 by Tony Marsland and 1 by the board of the
> ICCA. The first article by Tony is an example of how different
> cultures will never understand each other and how wars will always
> reign supreme on our planet. To we westerners, the article seems like
> a fawning [sic] diatribe to the graciousness of the hosts. I realize
> that that is what is expected in their culture but don't ask me ever to
> participate in a kiss your ass type of admiration that that article
> represents.

You need to understand why that article exists. Tony didn't sit at home in
Alberta and write that article for the ICCAJ. That article isn't really
even an article at all. It is a speech. It's the speech he gave at the
closing ceremony.

Look at the picture on page 235. Imagine a room full of us sitting there in
shirts like Stefan and Pascal are wearing in that picture. Imagine the rest
of the space filled with Indonesians who had spent the previous week or two
running around doing things for all of us.

Now read the article again, but pretend that it's Marsland reading the
article as a speech, and as he's reading the speech, people are coming up
for their awards and gifts.

I should think that it would read a little bit better, at least.

The people who helped out with this tournament really did do a fine job.
For example, when I checked my computer onto the plane, the airline only
checked it through as far as Malaysia. So when I got to Jakarta it was not
there. Ratih Dewanti found my computer in Malaysia, did whatever she had to
do to get it to Jakarta quickly, sat in a car with me all the way to the
airport (getting across Jakarta in a car is much less trivial than it
sounds), found the computer, got the right form filled out (decidedly
non-trivial), and got the guys in uniforms to let go of it (she made this
seem trivial, but who knows).

Another example. I was sitting on a bus, talking to one of the random guys
who was helping us out. I was asking him about kites. He volunteered to
get me one. I told him I'd like to go myself, because if I liked what I
saw, I might buy twenty of them. Next day, boom, twenty kites show up at
the playing hall.

You might expect some of this from an organizer, but they thoroughly overdid
it. What else should Marsland do but thank them for this?

So that's how I read the article. Those people deserved thanks, and that
article is how Marsland thanked them, face to face, in person.

bruce

[Komputer Korner]

brucemo wrote:
>
> Komputer Korner wrote:
>
>snipped

> I should think that it would read a little bit better, at least.
>
> The people who helped out with this tournament really did do a fine job.
> For example, when I checked my computer onto the plane, the airline only
> checked it through as far as Malaysia. So when I got to Jakarta it was not
> there. Ratih Dewanti found my computer in Malaysia, did whatever she had to
> do to get it to Jakarta quickly, sat in a car with me all the way to the
> airport (getting across Jakarta in a car is much less trivial than it
> sounds), found the computer, got the right form filled out (decidedly
> non-trivial), and got the guys in uniforms to let go of it (she made this
> seem trivial, but who knows).
>
> Another example. I was sitting on a bus, talking to one of the random guys
> who was helping us out. I was asking him about kites. He volunteered to
> get me one. I told him I'd like to go myself, because if I liked what I
> saw, I might buy twenty of them. Next day, boom, twenty kites show up at
> the playing hall.
>
> You might expect some of this from an organizer, but they thoroughly overdid
> it. What else should Marsland do but thank them for this?
>
> So that's how I read the article. Those people deserved thanks, and that
> article is how Marsland thanked them, face to face, in person.
>
> bruce

Okay, but is it necessary to put it in a Scientific journal?

[Robert Hyatt]

Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:

Do you read scientific journals very often? They quite often carry "keynote"
addresses at major conferences sponsored by the Journal or it's parent
organization. In this case, the ICCA produces the journal, and organizes the
event. There's a strong tie there. If you flip back through past issues, this
has been done frequently... Both in the JICCA and others. If they feel strongly
enough to publish it, it doesn't bother me. I still have control over what I
choose to read or not... when I don't like something, I just skip it.

This is getting back to the "censor mentality" again. If you want to broadcast
porno material on TV, doesn't bother me. You can't force me to watch it, so
you are free to broadcast, I'm free to switch channels, and everyone is happy.
*EXCEPT* for those that are outraged that I *might* watch. And to protect me
from myself, they choose to legislate or eradicate. I'm old enough to make up
my own mind, so are you. Just don't read what you don't want to know about.
Let those that do, do...

[Tom C. Kerrigan]

Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> > So that's how I read the article. Those people deserved thanks, and that
> > article is how Marsland thanked them, face to face, in person.

> Okay, but is it necessary to put it in a Scientific journal?

It's been a while since I've seen the journal (I have a sneaking suspicion
that my subscription ran dry) but as I recall, it's the International
Computer Chess Association Journal, and this is computer chess stuff.

I, for one, would like to read this speech.

Cheers,
Tom

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5bqn3m$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

> : > So that's how I read the article. Those people deserved thanks, and

that
> : > article is how Marsland thanked them, face to face, in person.

> : >
> : > bruce
>
> : Okay, but is it necessary to put it in a Scientific journal?
> : --
> : Komputer Korner
>
> Do you read scientific journals very often? They quite often carry
"keynote"
> addresses at major conferences sponsored by the Journal or it's parent
> organization. In this case, the ICCA produces the journal, and organizes
the
> event. There's a strong tie there. If you flip back through past
issues, this
> has been done frequently... Both in the JICCA and others. If they feel
strongly
> enough to publish it, it doesn't bother me. I still have control over
what I
> choose to read or not... when I don't like something, I just skip it.
>

If the journal is a propaganda organ for the disemmination of the views and
opinions of the organisation's controllers, then it would be entirely
expectable for such articles to appear.

However, as we know, there are many dissenting views amongst people who are
members of the ICCA, and have paid their dues.

This dissension is non-trivial.

I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to
illustrate these dissenting views. I have noticed attempts to merely state
their own position.

Now whether or not one agrees with the dissenters/controllers the issues of
access to the media and basic democracy seem to arise.

Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
democratic.

Chris Whittington

>
>
>

[brucemo]

Chris Whittington wrote:

> If the journal is a propaganda organ for the disemmination of the views and
> opinions of the organisation's controllers, then it would be entirely
> expectable for such articles to appear.

An article thanking the organizers of a tournament? What should they have
done?

> However, as we know, there are many dissenting views amongst people who are
> members of the ICCA, and have paid their dues.
>
> This dissension is non-trivial.
>
> I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to
> illustrate these dissenting views. I have noticed attempts to merely state
> their own position.

What should they do? Troll r.g.c.c. for random articles criticizing the
decision to hold the tournament in Jakarta, and construct an ICCAJ article
summarizing this?

I can't wait to see other organizations start doing this. I'll fall over
dead if I'm watching the CBS news and they start devoting five minutes at the
end of their broadcast each day to, "Complaints from the Internet".

If I held a viewpoint opposed to that professed by some organization, I
wouldn't just complain loudly in some peripheral area, then get angry because
the organization didn't go out of its way to find, distill, and publish my
complaint.

I think that instead I would either:

a) Talk to the ICCA folks directly, or
b) Write my own article and send it in.

You shouldn't expect them to write your article for you.

> Now whether or not one agrees with the dissenters/controllers the issues of
> access to the media and basic democracy seem to arise.

Gad, these aren't major media dudes. They are just some academic guys who
want to publish a magazine about a topic they are interested in. I don't
know where you and Thorsten get the idea that these are power- and money-mad
vindictive individuals, steeped in corruption. They are just people running
an organization, which means making decisions, which means in some cases
making decisions that not everyone agrees with.

I would like to see a show of "hands". Who out there is both:

a) an ICCA member, and
b) particularly bothered by anything they've done recently?

I'm not. They are just doing the best they can to try to promote computer
chess.

> Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
> democratic.

I would like to hear your story of supression. How were you supressed? I
know that you've had a big fight with the ICCA, but that had nothing to do
with Jakarta, did it? Has anyone tried to get you to shut up? Has anyone
refused to publish your Jakarta viewpoint?

bruce

[Chris Whittington]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <32E3FA...@nwlink.com>...

> Chris Whittington wrote:
>
> > If the journal is a propaganda organ for the disemmination of the views
and
> > opinions of the organisation's controllers, then it would be entirely
> > expectable for such articles to appear.
>
> An article thanking the organizers of a tournament? What should they
have
> done?

Come on, Bruce. I'm refering to the collective articles and their
trends/inclusions/omissions not to one single article.

Ie. the journal as a whole, not one article in it.

>
> > However, as we know, there are many dissenting views amongst people who
are
> > members of the ICCA, and have paid their dues.
> >
> > This dissension is non-trivial.
> >
> > I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to
> > illustrate these dissenting views. I have noticed attempts to merely
state
> > their own position.
>
> What should they do? Troll r.g.c.c. for random articles criticizing the
> decision to hold the tournament in Jakarta, and construct an ICCAJ
article
> summarizing this?

Yes. Or at least speak to the dissenters.

We're not all mad/evil. Much of the dissension is justified.

>
> I can't wait to see other organizations start doing this. I'll fall over

> dead if I'm watching the CBS news and they start devoting five minutes at
the
> end of their broadcast each day to, "Complaints from the Internet".

Now you're being disingenious.

The computer chess world is relatively limited in scope. There are not many
platforms where voices are heard. Obviously r.g.c.c. is a major forum with
respect to computer chess.

The net is *not* a major forum w.r.t. CBS news.

Your example is trivially meaningless.

And yes, they should be paying attention to r.g.c.c. or they'll be failing
to understand movements within the cc community.

>
> If I held a viewpoint opposed to that professed by some organization, I
> wouldn't just complain loudly in some peripheral area, then get angry
because
> the organization didn't go out of its way to find, distill, and publish
my
> complaint.
>
> I think that instead I would either:
>
> a) Talk to the ICCA folks directly, or
> b) Write my own article and send it in.

I understand Thorsten has contacted them directly (he is a paid member) and
receives no reply.

I get responses like 'I decline to answer at this stage'.

In the past I've had no response from them.
No response from them to solicitors letters.
Only a response after every two solicitors letters, the second chasing up
the first.

I rather think the communication failing is down to them.

>
> You shouldn't expect them to write your article for you.
>

I've gotten used to expecting nothing less than their worst case reaction
to anything I do.

> > Now whether or not one agrees with the dissenters/controllers the
issues of
> > access to the media and basic democracy seem to arise.
>
> Gad, these aren't major media dudes. They are just some academic guys
who
> want to publish a magazine about a topic they are interested in.

Mr David Levy is not an academic, unless I am mistaken he has (or has had)
significant commercial intererests in chess and chess computers and chess
tournaments.

> I don't
> know where you and Thorsten

Thorsten has his own ideas. Not necessarily the same as mine.

I know you like to play 'shoot the messenger' to deal with this critical
assessment of the ICCA (as the ICCA does also); but trying to line me up
with Thorsten in the sights of the firing squad is just not on.

> get the idea that these are power- and money-mad
> vindictive individuals, steeped in corruption.

Old technique. Exagerate the dissenting view to absurd proportions in order
to attack it.

> They are just people running
> an organization, which means making decisions, which means in some cases
> making decisions that not everyone agrees with.

In the current situation, they need to democratise.

r.g.c.c. is an important forum with many opinion formers and leaders of
computer chess.

The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
people doing anything for computer chess.

Times have changed. Many more people are franchised now. There is no need
for this small group of academics/commercial interests to be in sole
control of important cc events.

There are many people outside the ICCA organising cc stuff.

They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

>
> I would like to see a show of "hands". Who out there is both:
>
> a) an ICCA member, and
> b) particularly bothered by anything they've done recently?
>
> I'm not. They are just doing the best they can to try to promote
computer
> chess.

Well I am.

And, given the level of debate over Jakarta, I'ld say a good many others
are also.

Of course, there will also be many people who are entirely happy.

And my point isn't that *I am* disatisfied with them. Its that (a) they are
a supposedly democratic component of computer chess and (b) there is no
democratic forum within the organisation where dissenting voices get heard
and acted on.

This is a recipe for strife.

>
> > Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
> > democratic.
>
> I would like to hear your story of supression. How were you supressed?

I, for what is is worth, am (was) a part of the dissenters over Jakarta.

I have been attacked in emails sent out by ICCA board members to
participants in Jakarta, alleging that my motives for withdrawal were not
honourable.

The ICCA journal has published solely glowing and semi-sycophantic articles
about Jakarta.

I'ld sugegst to you that this is suppression by omission, and by character
assassination.

> I
> know that you've had a big fight with the ICCA, but that had nothing to
do
> with Jakarta, did it?
> Has anyone tried to get you to shut up? Has anyone
> refused to publish your Jakarta viewpoint?

Look, a printed academic journal is like a historical document.

In N years time, all that will be known about 1996 for CC will be what is
in solid print.

It therefore behoves the controllers of this print media to be honest,
truthful and, most importantly, complete in their committment of the facts
to hard copy.

It behoves them because the ICCA is allegedly not a commercial organisation
but a collection of paying members. Ie. it is supposed to be (a) democratic
and (b) impartially true and objective in its reporting.

This ICCA journal gives one side and one side only. Their side. Their
interests.

Chris Whittington

http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

>
> bruce
>

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<5c597m$i...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive

nutters,
> : and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
> : ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the
only
> : people doing anything for computer chess.
>
> : Times have changed. Many more people are franchised now. There is no
need
> : for this small group of academics/commercial interests to be in sole
> : control of important cc events.
>
> : There are many people outside the ICCA organising cc stuff.
>
> : They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.
>

> I don't see the problem here. Anyone can put on a computer chess event.
> It happens a couple of times a year, in France, in Holland, in Germany,
> who knows where else because I don't have the time/money to fly over and
> participate much as I'd like to. However, I don't see where the ICCA has
> any sort of patent on the idea of computers playing computers, any more
> than FIDE had a lock on GM vs GM world champion cycles. Having more than
> one is a distinct problem, but it would seem that the "better" would
likely
> survive. I think the biggest problem at present is that the ICCA is 100%
> volunteer, unlike the ACM, IEEE and other societies. Sometimes you get
> what you pay for...
>
> Problem is, no one else has stepped forward. I was there when Barend
Swets
> (Believe the spelling is correct) proposed forming this organization in
1977
> in Toronto. I was one of many that stood up and said "yes, I'll join."
> However, others stood up and said I'll not only join, I'll help for
nothing,
> and the ICCA was formed, and continues to work this way. Perhaps it's
> time for a change. However, the main problem today is that your fees
don't
> go to pay someone's salary, so that you can say "get out" if you don't
like
> their policies... As you might be able to do with an IEEE that was not
> supporting popular decisions. The ICCA is subtly different at present.
We
> can vote to raise the membership fee commensurate with the IEEE or
whatever,
> and then vote to pay a group to work on these issues full-time, but
that'd
> likely be an unpopular decision as well... the common definition of a
> classic "catch-22" if you remember the movie...
>

I know its a commonplace that the ICCA is run by volunteers and they don't
get paid, but I'm not so sure about this, because I've never seen the
detailed figures.

There's not getting paid and there's not getting paid.

Last year (I think March or April 1996), Don Beal (ICCA treasurer) answered
a post of mine giving greater than usual detail of the finances of the Hong
Kong CC tourney.

Buried in the detail was the issue of an 'Honorarium' for the TD. The exact
amount was not clear, but I assume it ran into 1000's of dollars.

The ICCA has never made a full disclosure of World Micro championship
finances, but, if they pay 'Honorarium' in these events as well, then
.......

And there is $30,000 in sponsorship, over and above the flights expenses
and so on, from Jakarta.

So there's 'Not getting paid'.

There's 'Expenses'.

And there's 'Honorarium'.

If they pay out in this way, and I don't know, they've never given details,
then there is considerable financial incentive for the ICCA officials to
ensure that tournaments exist, whatever the negatives. And considerable
financial incentive to ensure that Jakarta went ahead.

Because, and I don't know, again no specific information, no $30,000
sanctioning fee means no money for 'Honorarium'.

Again, the ICCA doesn't provide the figures to its membership. When I asked
for WMCCC financial breakdown, the reply came back, eventually, for the
Hong Kong championship, which is not the same thing.

Perhaps the last 4-5 years details would clear the issue, one way or the
other.

All I can say is that I don't know, because I don't get to see the figures.
What I do know is that unless the figures (and the whole operation) are
open and democratised, then questions will always remain.

Chris Whittington

>

[Robert Hyatt]

Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

: The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,

: and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
: ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
: people doing anything for computer chess.

: Times have changed. Many more people are franchised now. There is no need
: for this small group of academics/commercial interests to be in sole
: control of important cc events.

: There are many people outside the ICCA organising cc stuff.

: They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

I don't see the problem here. Anyone can put on a computer chess event.

[Robert Hyatt]

Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
: <5c597m$i...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
: > Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >

: > : The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive

: nutters,
: > : and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
: > : ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the
: only
: > : people doing anything for computer chess.
: >
: > : Times have changed. Many more people are franchised now. There is no
: need
: > : for this small group of academics/commercial interests to be in sole
: > : control of important cc events.
: >
: > : There are many people outside the ICCA organising cc stuff.
: >
: > : They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.
: >

: > I don't see the problem here. Anyone can put on a computer chess event.

: >

: I know its a commonplace that the ICCA is run by volunteers and they don't

: get paid, but I'm not so sure about this, because I've never seen the
: detailed figures.

: There's not getting paid and there's not getting paid.

: Last year (I think March or April 1996), Don Beal (ICCA treasurer) answered
: a post of mine giving greater than usual detail of the finances of the Hong
: Kong CC tourney.

: Buried in the detail was the issue of an 'Honorarium' for the TD. The exact
: amount was not clear, but I assume it ran into 1000's of dollars.

So far as I know, this has always been done. The TD does in fact take
time off from a job, to run a tournament. Asking him to do it for nothing
is asking a lot. Personally, I'd probably do it for travel expenses, but
I'm not an IM or GM and couldn't comment on the games nearly as well as
Mike Valvo or (last time) Jaap.

however, the TD's responsibility is to run the tournament, handle disputes,
do the pairings, adjudicate when necessary, etc. He's not the one that
picks the site, nor the participants, nor makes the rules, nor decides
who is commercial and who's not... Some of those decisions might be
subject to criticism... validly...

: The ICCA has never made a full disclosure of World Micro championship

: finances, but, if they pay 'Honorarium' in these events as well, then
: .......

: And there is $30,000 in sponsorship, over and above the flights expenses
: and so on, from Jakarta.

: So there's 'Not getting paid'.

: There's 'Expenses'.

: And there's 'Honorarium'.

: If they pay out in this way, and I don't know, they've never given details,
: then there is considerable financial incentive for the ICCA officials to
: ensure that tournaments exist, whatever the negatives. And considerable
: financial incentive to ensure that Jakarta went ahead.

: Because, and I don't know, again no specific information, no $30,000
: sanctioning fee means no money for 'Honorarium'.

So far as I know, the TD is the only one that gets paid, but I'm not an
ICCA officer and can't speak for them. Other ICCA people have typically
gotten free lodging and travel, but I hardly begrudge them that because
they don't get any other personal reward from the year's work they provide.

: Again, the ICCA doesn't provide the figures to its membership. When I asked

: for WMCCC financial breakdown, the reply came back, eventually, for the
: Hong Kong championship, which is not the same thing.

: Perhaps the last 4-5 years details would clear the issue, one way or the
: other.

: All I can say is that I don't know, because I don't get to see the figures.
: What I do know is that unless the figures (and the whole operation) are
: open and democratised, then questions will always remain.

Can't argue with you there... mysteries cause debates. I've always assumed
honesty and integrity...

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Chris Whittington wrote:
> I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to
> illustrate these dissenting views.

This seems a strange argument. Editorial, by definition,
consists of the editor's personal views. The articles by the ICCA
board ["The JUNIOR program ..."] and by Tony Marsland ["Experience
is a Hard Teacher"] in ICCAJ 19/4 deal with the criticisms and put
their views. You may feel they haven't dealt with the criticisms in
an adequate way, or that they haven't presented them in the way you
would have liked -- that's your provilege --, but that's different
from saying they haven't tried.

> Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
> democratic.

"Suppressing"? Do you have any evidence? ICCAJ can only
publish articles it receives. Have you submitted an article [or a
letter] and had it turned down "because it expresses views with which
the board disagrees" [or some such]?

--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk

[Ralf W. Stephan]

Chris Whittington writes:
> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
> people doing anything for computer chess.

>...

> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

Come on, check your naivete-meter. All over the world there is now
a media war between printing media and the internet. This is just
one minor theatre of it. And it is not only the money but also the
power of moderation of an information channel that will be lost for
all of them pashas.

ralf
--
Lynx-enhanced pages at <http://www.bayreuth-online.de/~stephan>

[Jonathan Schaeffer]

ra...@ark.franken.de (Ralf W. Stephan) writes:

>Chris Whittington writes:
>> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
>> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
>> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
>> people doing anything for computer chess.

>>...

>> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...

* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal

Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

[Don Fong]

In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
>
>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
>
>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and dissent.
negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.

by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very
"negative" attitude yourself. you are certainly entitled to your
opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.

thanks for proving Chris's point.

--
don fong ``i still want the peace dividend'' http://got.net/~dfong/

[mclane]

ra...@ark.franken.de (Ralf W. Stephan) wrote:

>Chris Whittington writes:
>> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
>> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
>> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
>> people doing anything for computer chess.

>>...

>> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

>Come on, check your naivete-meter. All over the world there is now

>a media war between printing media and the internet. This is just
>one minor theatre of it. And it is not only the money but also the
>power of moderation of an information channel that will be lost for
>all of them pashas.

Pashas is the right world. They are used to control there
surroundings.

[mclane]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

>Chris Whittington wrote:

>> If the journal is a propaganda organ for the disemmination of the views and
>> opinions of the organisation's controllers, then it would be entirely
>> expectable for such articles to appear.

>An article thanking the organizers of a tournament? What should they have
>done?

Not doing the championship in Jakarta !
Don't tell me they were unable to find any other place in the world.
Silly to mention this.

>> However, as we know, there are many dissenting views amongst people who are
>> members of the ICCA, and have paid their dues.
>>
>> This dissension is non-trivial.
>>

>> I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to

>> illustrate these dissenting views. I have noticed attempts to merely state
>> their own position.

>What should they do? Troll r.g.c.c. for random articles criticizing the
>decision to hold the tournament in Jakarta, and construct an ICCAJ article
>summarizing this?

>I can't wait to see other organizations start doing this. I'll fall over

>dead if I'm watching the CBS news and they start devoting five minutes at the
>end of their broadcast each day to, "Complaints from the Internet".

>If I held a viewpoint opposed to that professed by some organization, I

>wouldn't just complain loudly in some peripheral area, then get angry because
>the organization didn't go out of its way to find, distill, and publish my
>complaint.

>I think that instead I would either:

>a) Talk to the ICCA folks directly, or
>b) Write my own article and send it in.

>You shouldn't expect them to write your article for you.

But I should expect to get an answer onto an email !

>> Now whether or not one agrees with the dissenters/controllers the issues of
>> access to the media and basic democracy seem to arise.

>Gad, these aren't major media dudes. They are just some academic guys who
>want to publish a magazine about a topic they are interested in.

> I don't
>know where you and Thorsten get the idea that these are power- and money-mad

>vindictive individuals, steeped in corruption.

From experience !! What about the honorarians ?!

>They are just people running
>an organization, which means making decisions, which means in some cases
>making decisions that not everyone agrees with.

Right! And people not answering to questions that are not liked.
And people adjudicating chess games without any major rule (Van den
Herik in munich 1993) and people organizing a championship into a
tyrannic-country, and people getting honorarians.

>I would like to see a show of "hands". Who out there is both:

>a) an ICCA member, and
>b) particularly bothered by anything they've done recently?

You always reduce it to childish games. It's not that funny !

>I'm not. They are just doing the best they can to try to promote computer
>chess.

No - they don't! I have heard Van den Herik in munich telling the
amateur-programmer:
We can talk about the adjudication and we can discuss about it now.
I will listen to you and we will argue 2 or 4 hours, but my decision
is the same.

(A king listens, but he decided without any discussion!! )

The problem in munich was that van den herik decided ONE day that a
game should be adjudicated by CHESS-RULES (draw is a draw when it is a
technical draw) and the next evening he adjudicated asking the
programmer : is your program able to win this
technical-winning-position ?
Nobody would have recognized this difference, but the opponent was the
same PROGRAM !! So one day it got a disadvantage because van den herik
decided using rules (A) and next day the program got an disadvantage
because van den herik (maybe he had a bad day!) decided with rules
(NOT A).
This was too much for the programmer and he tried to say:
Oh - what are you doing. Why is my program always having a
disadvantage whenever you adjudicate.

Me and others where whitnesses. This above is only ONE example.

>> Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
>> democratic.

>I would like to hear your story of supression. How were you supressed? I

>know that you've had a big fight with the ICCA, but that had nothing to do
>with Jakarta, did it? Has anyone tried to get you to shut up? Has anyone
>refused to publish your Jakarta viewpoint?

>bruce

Bruce - you are making fog arround the facts. That will not make the
country look brighter, nor make these persons in my eyes beeing more
honest or better reputated.
Your idea of defending them (you told us once that you will give your
best to defend ICCA) is very nice, but it is a senseless idea. You
defending people that cannot be defended because they do arbitrary
decisions ! They don't have any exact rules HOW to organize the
tournament. They judge , and when the situation changes, they change
their evaluations.
This programmer is amateur. This one professional. And don't think you
would find out WHY. They decide without having ANY rules.

Why is Nimzo amateur, why hiarcs, why is chris professional although
he has not sold any program for years now.
Why is Stefan an amateur and you, and nimzo ?!
I don't want that YOU or the austrians or Mark should pay for
travelling. I would like to pay you all the flights if I would have
the money. But I don't like to see the leaders of an organisation
getting spoecial honorarians and decide whatever they want without
having any rules that are published !!!

I don't understand that you don't see this point!
You always speculate about reasons like me/chris
try to attack the ICCA for hatred or personal reasons.

That is not our destination.

When I buy a ticket to travel to washington, and I have to pay X and
another guy pays X/2 I ask: Why is HE paying X/2 ?!
I don't have anything against the X/2 payer not against the company.
But it should be allowed to ask WHY !!!

If nobody (of the ICCA) answers WHO (in personal) has made the
decision to do it in jakarta, if nobody of them answers who gets how
much honorarians, than this is not OUR problem.

[mclane]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> They are just some academic guys
>who
>> want to publish a magazine about a topic they are interested in.

>Mr David Levy is not an academic, unless I am mistaken he has (or has had)
>significant commercial intererests in chess and chess computers and chess
>tournaments.

>> I don't
>> know where you and Thorsten

>Thorsten has his own ideas. Not necessarily the same as mine.

Thanks chris.

>I know you like to play 'shoot the messenger' to deal with this critical
>assessment of the ICCA (as the ICCA does also); but trying to line me up
>with Thorsten in the sights of the firing squad is just not on.

>> get the idea that these are power- and money-mad
>> vindictive individuals, steeped in corruption.

>Old technique. Exagerate the dissenting view to absurd proportions in order
>to attack it.

>> They are just people running
>> an organization, which means making decisions, which means in some cases
>> making decisions that not everyone agrees with.

>In the current situation, they need to democratise.

Democratise ??? The ICCA ? Also the vatikan is not democratised.

[Jonathan Schaeffer]

df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:

Mr. Fong, it is a pleasure doing business with you again. As always,
you are right and everyone is wrong. Mr. Whittington (and yourself)
make outrageous claims and do not back them up.

By characterizing my contribution as "negative", you have not only
exhibited a tremendous bias, but have shown a "negative" attitude
yourself. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but until you

can recognize the positive contributions of others, perhaps you should
keep your advice to yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.

Oh yes. As always, I leave the last word to you (since you *always*
having something to say).

[Peter W. Gillgasch]

Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> --
> http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
>
> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

> <5c5s5d$q...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

> > Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > > : Buried in the detail was the issue of an 'Honorarium' for the TD.
> The exact > : amount was not clear, but I assume it ran into 1000's of
> dollars. > > So far as I know, this has always been done.
>

> Really ?
>
> Are you referring to the Homg Kong championship (ie the tri--annual World
> Computer Championship), or to the WMCCC (yearly microcomputer events) ?
>
> Because they say they are all volunteers who don't get paid.

FWIW IM Mike Valvo was introduced to us by the board of the ICCA
(Marsland, Levy, Beal, Van den Herik) at the WCCC in a way that made it
clear that:

1. The ICCA pays him for being there.
2. Mike is a professional.
3. The ICCA is happy to have him there since he has a lot of experience
doing this job.

There was no objection against this, we all have been happy with Mike,
he did a very good job. I would even say that Mike is one of the coolest
tourney directors I ever dealt with, both in my life as a chess player
as well as in my life as program author.

I wouldn't expect anyone to hang around in a place as HK and to deal
with the "legal problems" of us nutters without financial compensation.

-- Peter

[Rolf Tueschen]

jona...@cs.ualberta.ca (Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:

>ra...@ark.franken.de (Ralf W. Stephan) writes:

>>Chris Whittington writes:
>>> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
>>> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
>>> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
>>> people doing anything for computer chess.

>>>...

>>> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...

>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal

>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

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

Oh boy, that's so mean, so low. When people are forced to use such tools of
disinformation it's not long before they vanish from power. If ever they had
some. Schnickschnack.

As far as known publicly CW did contribute much more *to computer chess* than
his critic (?) seems (?) to know.

Rolf <What must be conceded.> Tueschen

[Don Fong]

In article <5capl8$f...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
>>In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>>Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>>>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
>>>
>>>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
>>>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
>>>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
>>>
>>>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
>>>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.
>

>> apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and dissent.
>>negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
>>be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
>>if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.
>
>> by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
>>not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very
>>"negative" attitude yourself. you are certainly entitled to your
>>opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
>>of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.
>
>> thanks for proving Chris's point.
>
>Mr. Fong, it is a pleasure doing business with you again. As always,
>you are right and everyone is wrong.

dude, who appointed you spokesman for everyone else?

now, perhaps there are many who agree with you. perhaps they are
even a majority. perhaps you are the very incarnation of the wisdom
of the masses. but what if the dissenters are right?
i wonder what your dept is like. you obviously can't handle
criticism. i'm sorry to be the only cloud in the sky. when you come
from such a sheltered environment, i guess even mild criticism must
hurt like hell.

>Mr. Whittington (and yourself)
>make outrageous claims and do not back them up.

ROFL! YOU'RE the one who's going around telling people to shut
up, sherlock. YOU'RE the one making accusations against Chris Whittington,
but YOU haven't provided any supporting facts.
if you got a problem with something he said (or something i said),
then why don't you identify it specifically and refute it? instead
of telling him to shut up. that's how free speech works.

>By characterizing my contribution as "negative", you have not only
>exhibited a tremendous bias, but have shown a "negative" attitude
>yourself. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but until you
>can recognize the positive contributions of others, perhaps you should
>keep your advice to yourself.

what i said was true: you did characterize Chris's contribution
as "negative". what you said is untrue: i did not characterize your
contribution as "negative". how sad to see a professor of computer
science reduced to mindless babbling and chimp-like imitation.

>Thanks for proving my point.

Chris's point was that ICCA does not listen to critics. (at
least, that is my interpretation of what he said.) your dismissive
reply was an excellent illustration of his point. OTOH, your point
was that Chris should shut up. (at least, i couldn't discern any
other point you were trying to make.) i don't see how my post could
reasonably be interpreted as supporting or proving your point.

>Oh yes. As always, I leave the last word to you (since you *always*
>having something to say).

you really don't apprehend the importance of diversity of
thought, do you?

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Dr A. N. Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote in article
<32E658...@maths.nott.ac.uk>...

> Chris Whittington wrote:
> > I haven't noticed any attempt by the ICCA editorial/controllers to
> > illustrate these dissenting views.
>

> This seems a strange argument. Editorial, by definition,
> consists of the editor's personal views.

Well that depends.

Posit two situations:

a) independant commercial magazine operating in free market - then I'ld
agree with you.

b) academic journal paid for by membership subscriptions - that's
different; the editor has it as his duty to reflect the diversity of view,
to adopt much higher standards of truth and not to use the journal as
either a political platform, nor as an attack platform.

> The articles by the ICCA
> board ["The JUNIOR program ..."] and by Tony Marsland ["Experience
> is a Hard Teacher"] in ICCAJ 19/4 deal with the criticisms and put
> their views. You may feel they haven't dealt with the criticisms in
> an adequate way, or that they haven't presented them in the way you
> would have liked -- that's your provilege --, but that's different
> from saying they haven't tried.

Well, they went into hedgehog mode, didn't they ?

All bristles and no listen.

r.g.c.c. was dismissed in a couple of sentences.
dissent was dismissed as "uninformed rumour and hostile speculation"
amateur/professional issue was dismissed as "we'll carry on as before"

>
> > Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
> > democratic.
>

> "Suppressing"? Do you have any evidence?

Please refer to earlier posts in this thread.

Suppression can be, and is in this case, by both omission and character
assassination.

> ICCAJ can only
> publish articles it receives. Have you submitted an article [or a
> letter] and had it turned down "because it expresses views with which
> the board disagrees" [or some such]?

No doubt you'll have read Schaeffer's comments in this thread, (Schaeffer
used to do the accounts for ICCA until recently).
He could have chosen to answer some points.
He could, if appropriate, have challenged some points.
But, angered, he gave away the real ICCA position, and that doesn't include
listening to me. You can see it easy, they've become hedgehogs.

And as someone who either gets ignored (as does Thorsten when he
communicates with them), or receives replies such as "I decline to answer
at this stage"; I'm rather inclined to doubt that I'ld be doing much more
than wasting my time by sending them anything.

Plus to send in an article would:

(a) allow ICCA moderation and censorship rights

(b) if printed, be at least 3 months out of date

(c) be accepting their authority

(d) its not my job to provide them with articles.

r.g.c.c. is a far better platform for these. You might consider I write
articles here :)

Finally, I agree with your general tone: its a free world, they can
publish, you can post, I can post; we can all be different, agree,
disagree, dissent, criticise, support.

Now we have an unmoderated, open channel, then that's whats happening.

Open debate.

Chris Whittington

[mclane]

jona...@cs.ualberta.ca (Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:

>ra...@ark.franken.de (Ralf W. Stephan) writes:

>>Chris Whittington writes:
>>> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive nutters,
>>> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor misjudged
>>> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the only
>>> people doing anything for computer chess.

>>>...

>>> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.

>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...

>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal

>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

What ?! This is all you have to tell us ?!?!
You really are that naiv to blame somebody weho critics you with such
a trivial comment like:

BEFORE YOU PISS ON US YOU SHOULD BE A organizer and producer YOUSELF
!!

You are making a joke, you can't be jonathan schaeffer !
You are sounding like a 12 year old kid telling us that his father has
a bigger car than we have.

I heard he is a big name. Now the guy misusing your name shows this
naive asnwer.

OK: It is not important WHAT somebody or WHO somebody is.
If his critic is ok, than it does not count WHO he is or WHAT he is.

Your answer shows us exactly that ICCA is dirven by that kind of
people chris told us in his nice vision.

Thanks for your outing yourself!

[mclane]

df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:

>In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
>>
>>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
>>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
>>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
>>
>>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
>>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

> apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and dissent.

>negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
>be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
>if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.

> by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
>not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very
>"negative" attitude yourself.

Right Don, thats exactly the point. They are so arrogant, they don't
see that they show us their arrogance with any message they send us.

>you are certainly entitled to your
>opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
>of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.

> thanks for proving Chris's point.

Yes. We all have to thank.

I would suggest these people in the ICCA should resign after having
shown these behaviour.

In my opinion ICCA should be assembled out of people that are not
arrogant and do listen to critics instead of asking persons giving
critics WHO they are.

[mclane]

jona...@cs.ualberta.ca (Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:

>Mr. Fong, it is a pleasure doing business with you again. As always,

>you are right and everyone is wrong. Mr. Whittington (and yourself)

>make outrageous claims and do not back them up.

Your level of responding is now decreasing from an 12 year old boy
into a 11 year old boy !

>Oh yes. As always, I leave the last word to you (since you *always*
>having something to say).

I would like you to resign or to be quiet instead !!

[mclane]

df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:

> now, perhaps there are many who agree with you. perhaps they are
>even a majority. perhaps you are the very incarnation of the wisdom
>of the masses. but what if the dissenters are right?

> i wonder what your dept is like. you obviously can't handle
>criticism.

Thats it !! They are not used to. They are kings!

> i'm sorry to be the only cloud in the sky. when you come
>from such a sheltered environment, i guess even mild criticism must
>hurt like hell.

>>Mr. Whittington (and yourself)

>>make outrageous claims and do not back them up.

> ROFL!

>YOU'RE the one who's going around telling people to shut
>up, sherlock.
>YOU'RE the one making accusations against Chris Whittington,
>but YOU haven't provided any supporting facts.
> if you got a problem with something he said (or something i said),
>then why don't you identify it specifically and refute it? instead
>of telling him to shut up. that's how free speech works.

Hugh ! There is really somebody seeing through these scholastic
rethorical-figures. Brilliant Mr. Dong Fong. You seem to have enough
IQ or life-experience to see all the dirty tricks of
rethorical-speeches.

I want to meet you in real life one day.

>>By characterizing my contribution as "negative", you have not only
>>exhibited a tremendous bias, but have shown a "negative" attitude

>>yourself. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but until you

>>can recognize the positive contributions of others, perhaps you should
>>keep your advice to yourself.

> what i said was true: you did characterize Chris's contribution

>as "negative". what you said is untrue: i did not characterize your
>contribution as "negative".

>how sad to see a professor of computer
>science reduced to mindless babbling and chimp-like imitation.

He is a professor ???? Heavens ! What about the poor students ?!

>>Thanks for proving my point.

> Chris's point was that ICCA does not listen to critics. (at
>least, that is my interpretation of what he said.) your dismissive
>reply was an excellent illustration of his point.

Right ! Exactly what I want to SHOW here in newsgroups for a couple of
months now. But Bruce and others don't SEEEEEEEEEE it,

>OTOH, your point
>was that Chris should shut up. (at least, i couldn't discern any
>other point you were trying to make.) i don't see how my post could
>reasonably be interpreted as supporting or proving your point.

>>Oh yes. As always, I leave the last word to you (since you *always*
>>having something to say).

> you really don't apprehend the importance of diversity of
>thought, do you?

[mclane]

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Oh boy, that's so mean, so low. When people are forced to use such tools of
>disinformation it's not long before they vanish from power. If ever they had
>some. Schnickschnack.

>As far as known publicly CW did contribute much more *to computer chess* than
>his critic (?) seems (?) to know.

>Rolf <What must be conceded.> Tueschen

I heard and read much about Jonathan Schaeffer, but I did not know
that his IQ is that of a child or that he is that arrogant.

I still can't believe that he was in person. Maybe a joke by somebody
else misusing his email...

Unbelievable...

[mclane]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> > Just suppressing all criticism seems to me to be neither effective nor
>> > democratic.
>>
>> "Suppressing"? Do you have any evidence?

>Please refer to earlier posts in this thread.

>Suppression can be, and is in this case, by both omission and character
>assassination.

>> ICCAJ can only
>> publish articles it receives. Have you submitted an article [or a
>> letter] and had it turned down "because it expresses views with which
>> the board disagrees" [or some such]?

>No doubt you'll have read Schaeffer's comments in this thread, (Schaeffer
>used to do the accounts for ICCA until recently).
>He could have chosen to answer some points.

He could.

>He could, if appropriate, have challenged some points.

He could.

>But, angered, he gave away the real ICCA position, and that doesn't include
>listening to me. You can see it easy, they've become hedgehogs.

>And as someone who either gets ignored (as does Thorsten when he
>communicates with them), or receives replies such as "I decline to answer
>at this stage"; I'm rather inclined to doubt that I'ld be doing much more
>than wasting my time by sending them anything.

Thats the point. Dinosaurs will die ? No.They are dead yet. But they
do not know obviously. Maybe these guys should check this before
posting these nasty replies. We are not in a kindergarden. We are not
the ICCA-level.

We are better informed !

>Plus to send in an article would:

>(a) allow ICCA moderation and censorship rights

>(b) if printed, be at least 3 months out of date

>(c) be accepting their authority

>(d) its not my job to provide them with articles.

Exactly these points were always choosable when we send critics or
articles to COMPUTER - SCHACH & SPIELE. It was the same mess with
them.

>r.g.c.c. is a far better platform for these. You might consider I write
>articles here :)

>Finally, I agree with your general tone: its a free world, they can
>publish, you can post, I can post; we can all be different, agree,
>disagree, dissent, criticise, support.

>Now we have an unmoderated, open channel, then that's whats happening.

>Open debate.

>Chris Whittington

.... until interests-groups have censorshipped this last terretory.

[mclane]

>Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>-- Peter

Mike Valvo is a nice guy - no doubt about it. I do not count him into
one group with friedel / Levy / van den herik.

He is more in the group:
Mike Valvo, Vlastimil Hort, Bronstein, Seiravan,.

You see the difference ? The one group is know because the people are
nice and they are important players, the other group is know for ....
aehhh ---- have forgotten why ..... :-)

No - stop. I make an exception. Levy is known by me because he ALWAYS
TRIED TO BUILD / SELL / DISTRIBUTE intelligent
computer-chess-products.

He often (always ?) failed, but he tried. For a couple of years I have
not heard much from him continuing this nice job. What a pity.

[Don Fong]

In article <5cepm7$f...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>The ICCA has never failed to listen to me and do what I've asked.
[...]
>I've *never* asked the ICCA to do anything for me.

very funny. the question was whether ICCA listens to dissent.
i think Jonathan Schaeffer telling Chris Whittington to keep his
"negative attitude" to himself, pretty much answers the question.

[...]
>My suggestion is to simply hush up about the Jakarta event, it's history.

i was content to let the matter rest. however ICCA isn't shutting
up about it.

>Next year is another tournament. Rather than
>waiting to see if some other unsavory (to you or others) sponsor steps up and
>offers to host the event, put something together yourself.

based on what i've seen here, i don't think ICCA is the kind of
organization i'd want to work with, for several reasons. i believe
the WMCCC event is one where they expect to turn a profit, to help
cover their "operating expenses" for the rest of the year. but if i
were going to volunteer to organize an event, i'd be doing it for its
own sake, not to line ICCA's coffers. i'm not sure what ICCA's
charter is. it is probably something i would not support.
another reason is that ICCA does not yet seem to realize that
Jakarta was a mistake.
to all appearances ICCA is just as Chris Whittington said, an
unresponsive undemocratic organization that does not listen to dissent.

[Robert Hyatt]

Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: Chris's point was that ICCA does not listen to critics. (at

: least, that is my interpretation of what he said.) your dismissive

: reply was an excellent illustration of his point. OTOH, your point

: was that Chris should shut up. (at least, i couldn't discern any
: other point you were trying to make.) i don't see how my post could
: reasonably be interpreted as supporting or proving your point.

Hmmm.. an interesting bit of trivia that's related here...

The ICCA has never failed to listen to me and do what I've asked. Hmmm..
Of course, you will respond, but look who *you* are... and now for the
rest of the story (Sorry Paul, couldn't resist.)

I've *never* asked the ICCA to do anything for me. I was a charter member
of the ICCA, joining in 1977 when it was formed in Toronto. All I've ever
expected is (a) an annual ACM computer chess event (come on guys, is the
ACM dead forever or not?) (b) a World Computer Chess Championship tournament
every 3 years, and (c) a newsletter turned into a Journal to report on current
computer chess research. That's it.. just about what I'd expect from the
IEEE or ACM groups.

No human rights stands, no boycotts, no this or that, just a simple organization
that promulgates computer chess. My suggestion is to simply hush up about the
Jakarta event, it's history. Next year is another tournament. Rather than

waiting to see if some other unsavory (to you or others) sponsor steps up and

offers to host the event, put something together yourself. I'd love to see it
in the US myself... But I don't have the time nor energy to make it happen. I
can barely attend these things. Of course it's much easier to stand back and
continually throw darts... I'd rather see you stand back and organize something
over here. I'll help if I can...

Bob

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:

: >In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
: >Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
: >>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
: >>
: >>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
: >>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
: >>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
: >>
: >>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I think
: >>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.

: > apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and dissent.
: >negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
: >be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
: >if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.

: > by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
: >not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very
: >"negative" attitude yourself.

: Right Don, thats exactly the point. They are so arrogant, they don't
: see that they show us their arrogance with any message they send us.

: >you are certainly entitled to your

: >opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
: >of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.

: > thanks for proving Chris's point.

: Yes. We all have to thank.

: I would suggest these people in the ICCA should resign after having
: shown these behaviour.

: In my opinion ICCA should be assembled out of people that are not

: arrogant and do listen to critics instead of asking persons giving
: critics WHO they are.

If you replace the current ICCA people by their exact "opposites" the thing
would be run by a bunch of schizo-insane-vindictive-radicals. The ICCA needs
evolutionaries, not revolutionaries. As the saying goes, "if you don't like
the music, you don't have to dance." Why keep up with the bitching and moaning.
Create your own organization, that behaves in any way you like. The ICCA has
served its charter functions well for nearly 20 years. I'd like to see it continue
as it is. It's easy to post crap here. It's much more difficult to form such
an organization, and make it work. I see three options for you: (1) form a
competing organization and make it better than the ICCA. People will follow if
you pull this off. (2) Tolerate the current ICCA as is. (3) continuing throwing
stones in the newsgroup. (3) seems to be the choice of the day, but it's not
producing much in the way of results... it's the worst choice of the three
options, but it *is* the easiest...

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

: >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: Unbelievable...

If you take the entire post from above, eliminate all the crap, and just keep
the useful stuff, and then divide this into the cost to transmit this crap all
over the world, you get an infinite cost, because there is *no* useful content
at all. The same can be said about my post here as well, unfortunately, but
for crying out loud, I'd like to find at least *one* interesting post out of
every 20 or so. Today's like wading in a pig sty... no matter where I step
it's always in crap...

[Don Fong]

In article <5cgldi$5...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
[...]

>If you replace the current ICCA people by their exact
>"opposites" the thing would be run by a bunch of
>schizo-insane-vindictive-radicals.

you're the only one who has suggested that.
nice distortion, Bob.

>The ICCA needs evolutionaries, not revolutionaries.

hold onto that thought...

>As the saying goes, "if
>you don't like the music, you don't have to dance." Why keep up
>with the bitching and moaning. Create your own organization,
>that behaves in any way you like.

[...]

>I see three options for you: (1) form a competing organization and
>make it better than the ICCA. People will follow if you pull
>this off. (2) Tolerate the current ICCA as is. (3) continuing
>throwing stones in the newsgroup.

interesting. above, you said that "ICCA needs evolutionaries,
not revolutionaries". but your list of options omits a fourth
possibility: that ICCA might change in response to its critics,
instead of telling them to shut up. but listening to critics
is part of the evolution of an organization.

your argument is basically, "America, love it or leave it".
a good example of a false dichotomy.

[Rolf Tueschen]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>: >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>: Unbelievable...

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

Yes and no.

Bob Hyatt as always saw some points. And from his view of must-support a dear
old friend (Mr./Prof, Sxhaeffer) he's quite right. What's the content of the
above --- all crap. He felt like wading in a pig sty ...

Very tasteful indeed. But still comprehensible ...

But what Bob Hyatt seems to have overlooked is another very important point.
And that is the fact -- the fact simply as such --- that a very intelligent and
educated expert as Mr. Schaeffer jumped into this group, gave verdict over CW
without ANY facts at all, and finally got into a rather mad fight against Don
Fong. The latter point proved my former judgement very well but I didn't know
it at the time.
As concerns the CW point I could have left the scandal aside. But what forced
me to show up was an indisposition caused by Schaeffer's attack. His shifting.
His lacking all possible arguments.

And now the same by Bob. Unbelievable. Complete deceiption. God came down to
earth. Lost all guru-like calmness. And what does it mean? Well, that Bob
jumped into the ring, saying *if you continue playing on Jonathan, you'll have
to know that I'm behind him, you'll have to fight me; would you dare that
too??*. The same argument (!) for ICCA.

No, Bob, we won't loose our last god. Jonathan is ok. We can't see why but he
surely had his reasons. Perhaps you know them too. So Bob, please, take my
apologies. I will clean all the pig shit at your feet. And I will kiss your
toes one after another. The big one and the next a little curved one. And so
on.

The sun is shining again.

And if they're not dead ...

[Robert Hyatt]

Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5cgldi$5...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,

: hold onto that thought...

Works for me. If you don't like it, .... :)

Nope... it is a sign that the ICCA is doing fine in most people's
opinion. If there is a large part of the membership that's unhappy,
exactly *how* can ICCA survive? Simple economics says it wouldn't. If
a small faction is not happy, that's life. I don't like a lot of things
that happen in the world. When possible, I choose to not participate in those
things I don't like. I don't gamble, but I don't go on tirades against
gambling interests and casinos in Mississippi, or dog tracks all over the
country, or horse tracks, or... The people that like that lifestyle are
welcome to it, and if it can survive without me, so be it.

I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job
as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
since it is surviving, it must be doing something right. Why don't you
spend as much time looking for good as you do bad? ICCA has hosted a
dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
and is not serving the membership.

*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen
to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't
involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
only seem capable of "talking". The ICCA was formed to further the cause
of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,
but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Peter W. Gillgasch <gil...@ilk.de> wrote in article
<199701241941483419452@[194.121.104.134]>...

This is entirely fair enough. Someone brought in from outside, ok.

But what if an ICCA organiser is Tournament Director ?

As far as I am aware the TD's at the WMCC events for the past few years
have been:

Lyon 1991 TD: shared between Levy and van den Herik. Valvo was also
there, but I think he was termed an 'arbiter'
1992 ?
1993 Munich TD: shared Levy and van den Herik
1994 ?
1995 Paderborn TD: shared Levy and van den Herik
1996 Jakarta TD: shared Marsland and van den Herik

Was an Honorarium paid in these cases ?

Don Beal said there's an Honorarium at Hong Kong.
Bob Hyatt said Honorarium is 'normal' to be paid to the TD
ICCA says their officials are volunteers and don't get paid.

I'm confused by these apparently conflicting 'facts'.

Hopefully there's a totally reasonable explanation ........

Chris Whittington

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
<5capl8$f...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...

> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>
> >In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> >Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
> >>
> >>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
> >>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
> >>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
> >>
> >>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I
think
> >>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.
>
> > apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and dissent.
> >negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
> >be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
> >if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.
>
> > by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
> >not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very

> >"negative" attitude yourself. you are certainly entitled to your

> >opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
> >of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.
>
> > thanks for proving Chris's point.
>

> Mr. Fong, it is a pleasure doing business with you again. As always,

> you are right and everyone is wrong. Mr. Whittington (and yourself)

> make outrageous claims and do not back them up.
>

> By characterizing my contribution as "negative", you have not only
> exhibited a tremendous bias, but have shown a "negative" attitude

> yourself. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but until you

> can recognize the positive contributions of others, perhaps you should
> keep your advice to yourself.
>

> Thanks for proving my point.
>
>

> Oh yes. As always, I leave the last word to you (since you *always*
> having something to say).
>

Here today, gone tomorrow. Slippery.

1. Does Mr Schaeffer ever answer any questions, or does he just play 'shoot
the messenger' ? Hedgehogs with entrenched positions come to mind. Why so
defensive ? Being open might be the best defensive method, unless ......

2. Mr Schaeffer is so angry that he's become very confused. I very rarely
post 'claims', let alone 'outrageous' ones. I ask questions, and juxtapose
conflicting facts. Mr Schaeffer may 'read' claims into my words, but this
may be more to do with where his own thought patterns are leading him,
maybe because he's been there before.
Because Thorsten Czub and Don Fong and others appear to be in agreement
over this issue, it doesn't mean, Mr Schaeffer, that I said what they
posted, geddit ?

3. Just who does Mr Schaeffer want to allow to speak ? If what he hears, he
doesn't like, then he generates a 'you can't talk, because you haven't <
insert spurious reason here >'
For your information, Mr Schaeffer, no I don't contribute to a tri-monthly
house magazine. Since your collaborators choose to characterise me in such
negative terms, and fail ever to answer any points raised, I wouldn't want
to waste my time.

Instead I contribute to a daily magazine. One which is not moderated, nor
subject to a mono-cultural editorial line, which is instant, allows instant
right of reply, where lies are quickly exposed, which contains up-to-date
news and ideas, one which ICCA officials studiously avoid, and characterise
as 'uninformed rumour' and 'hostile speculation'. I refer to r.g.c.c.

It takes *two* to fight a war, Mr Schaeffer. Perhaps you might think on
that. Or perhaps not: its a concept wrapped up in Chris Whittington paper
packaging, the wrong packaging, so you can can just dismiss it .....

Looking forward to another of your angry, trivial and content-free posts in
another few months time.

Chris Whittington

[Don Fong]

In article <5cj6d1$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: your argument is basically, "America, love it or leave it".
>: a good example of a false dichotomy.
>
>Works for me. If you don't like it, .... :)

fortunately, some people are more open minded than you.
i for one will continue to criticize and try to make America a
better place, etc. if you don't like my criticism, you don't
have to listen. it's that simple.

>Nope... it is a sign that the ICCA is doing fine in most people's
>opinion. If there is a large part of the membership that's unhappy,
>exactly *how* can ICCA survive?

the same way lots of poorly run businesses survive,
in the short run. in the long run, maybe they won't survive.
dissent can hasten the adjustment.

>Simple economics says it wouldn't.

open your eyes Bob, the real world isn't always that simple.
ask yourself why doesn't dynamite explode immediately? (after all,
the exploded state is thermodynamically much more favorable.) ans:
there is an energy barrier that has to be overcome.

>If a small faction is not happy, that's life. I don't like a lot of things
>that happen in the world. When possible, I choose to not participate in those
>things I don't like. I don't gamble, but I don't go on tirades against
>gambling interests and casinos in Mississippi, or dog tracks all over the
>country, or horse tracks, or... The people that like that lifestyle are
>welcome to it, and if it can survive without me, so be it.

no, you go on tirades against people who criticize. (:-)

>I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job
>as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
>since it is surviving, it must be doing something right. Why don't you
>spend as much time looking for good as you do bad?

that's a nice principle. if i were trying to encourage a retarded
child, rather than deal with an ossified bureaucracy, i might take
that approach. however. speaking for myself, i don't like what ICCA
did at Jakarta, and my goal is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
i don't see how your suggested approach will contribute to that goal.

>ICCA has hosted a
>dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
>playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
>result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
>and is not serving the membership.

Bob, those are not things that *i* said.

>*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen
>to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
>have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
>mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

gee Bob, with such a forgiving attitude you would have been right
at home on the OJ jury.

>And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't
>involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
>events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
>Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
>more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
>only seem capable of "talking".

Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
when i say it.

>The ICCA was formed to further the cause
>of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,
>but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
>around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

Bob, ICCA is not a world apart. it is part of the larger world
in which we all live. it does things that affect the larger world.
as such, everyone who is affected has the right to comment on and
criticize it. i don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about
the legal profession. i don't have to be politician to criticize
politicians. i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.
i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
computer chess. ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they
listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
public flak until they start listening.

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote in article
<5c9pvk$e...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...

> jona...@cs.ualberta.ca (Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:
>
> >ra...@ark.franken.de (Ralf W. Stephan) writes:
>
> >>Chris Whittington writes:
> >>> The attitude of ICCA is that r.g.c.c. is a bunch of destructive
nutters,
> >>> and self-seekers who are playing games, while they, the poor
misjudged
> >>> ICCA, are (a) the only people capable of taking decisions and (b) the
only
> >>> people doing anything for computer chess.
> >>>...
> >>> They (the ICCA) need to open up and democratise.
>

> >Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...
>
> >* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
> >* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
> >* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
>
> >Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I
think
> >you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.
>

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

>
> Oh boy, that's so mean, so low. When people are forced to use such tools
of
> disinformation it's not long before they vanish from power. If ever they
had
> some. Schnickschnack.
>
> As far as known publicly CW did contribute much more *to computer chess*
than
> his critic (?) seems (?) to know.
>
>
> Rolf <What must be conceded.> Tueschen
>

Thank you.

Chris Whittington

[Jonathan Schaeffer]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>It takes *two* to fight a war, Mr Schaeffer. Perhaps you might think on that.

I am not looking for a war, Mr. Whittington. I am looking for some
responsibility on your part.

It is easy to sit back and criticize the ICCA; the ICCA is not perfect.
But it is another thing to do something about it. Every three years the
ICCA elects a new president, vice-president and secretary/treasurer.
Every three years there is a shortage of candidates.

You think there are some problems with the ICCA (a recurring theme in
your posts over the years). Fine. Then do something about it. The next
ICCA election is in 1998. Candidates will have to declare themselves sometime
before the end of this year.

Can I count you (and your supporters) as candidates?

Don't just give destructive commentary. Be positive and do something for
the collective good.

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article

<5cikc4$j...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...

> "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> writes:
> >It takes *two* to fight a war, Mr Schaeffer. Perhaps you might think on
that.
>
> I am not looking for a war, Mr. Whittington. I am looking for some
> responsibility on your part.

Cheap.

>
> It is easy to sit back and criticize the ICCA; the ICCA is not perfect.

You said it.

> But it is another thing to do something about it. Every three years the
> ICCA elects a new president, vice-president and secretary/treasurer.
> Every three years there is a shortage of candidates.
>
> You think there are some problems with the ICCA (a recurring theme in
> your posts over the years). Fine. Then do something about it.

What do you think critical debate is ? Doing nothing ?

> The next
> ICCA election is in 1998.

There's plenty to say about the 'election' process. Do you support
balloting of all members ?

> Candidates will have to declare themselves sometime
> before the end of this year.
>
> Can I count you (and your supporters) as candidates?

ROTFL.

I expect many people will be producing new manifestos for the ICCA.

>
> Don't just give destructive commentary. Be positive and do something for
> the collective good.
>

Cheap again. Gets tedious after a while.

OK, I appreciate your partial attempt at moving forward.

Shame you can't do it without laying minefields and firing your weapons at
the same time, but we'll be grateful for small mercies.

Chris Whittington

[Don Fong]

In article <32EC72...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>These folks listened and decided. If you wanted to be in on the decision
>you could have contacted them. I did. I was angry about the Junior
>thing, and I sent email, and Marsland called me on the phone, and spoke
>with me long enough that my wife started to glare at me.

Bruce, you admitted earlier you had made a mistake with your
"St Peter" post, and you're making the same mistake again.

[...]
>Therefore, "does not instantly cave-in to" might be more accurate than
>"does not listen to". I've spent some time trying to figure out what you
>think they SHOULD have done, and I can't figure out how you would have an
>organization react to this kind of peripheral dissent, other than to
>immediately surrender to you guys.

how many times do we have to explain it? Chris said they should
publish a dissenting view. (at least, that is my interpretation of
what he said.) instead, Jonathan Schaeffer tells Chris to shut up.
ysee, the topic now is not (just) what ICCA should have done about the
WMCCC, but how ICCA conducts itself afterward. you must have grasped
this point earlier, because you were arguing against it. but in your
zeal to attack ICCA's critics, you seem to have forgotten what we were
arguing about.

>Which brings us to another point. I haven't heard that any one of you
>guys actually dissented AT them.

then you haven't been reading carefully.

>All of the noise was in here, wasn't it? Did anyone actually
>contact them, and end up after the conversation in a state of
>unresolved disagreement?

no Bruce, you are dead wrong, again. you're searching deeply for
hypocrisy, but you need look no farther than the nearest mirror.
how about addressing the substance of the arguments instead of
fishing for ad hominems. do you have any real arguments based on
principle and reason, or is diversionary bullshit the best you can do?

[brucemo]

Don Fong wrote:

> to all appearances ICCA is just as Chris Whittington said, an
> unresponsive undemocratic organization that does not listen to dissent.

I spoke with Marsland about this for hours. He very definately knew all
about this stuff, as it was happening.

Schaeffer is on the board of the ICCAJ, obviously he listens since he
responded in this thread.

These folks listened and decided. If you wanted to be in on the decision
you could have contacted them. I did. I was angry about the Junior
thing, and I sent email, and Marsland called me on the phone, and spoke
with me long enough that my wife started to glare at me.

Therefore, "does not instantly cave-in to" might be more accurate than

"does not listen to". I've spent some time trying to figure out what you
think they SHOULD have done, and I can't figure out how you would have an
organization react to this kind of peripheral dissent, other than to
immediately surrender to you guys.

Which brings us to another point. I haven't heard that any one of you
guys actually dissented AT them. All of the noise was in here, wasn't

it? Did anyone actually contact them, and end up after the conversation
in a state of unresolved disagreement?

Who are the members who were ignored by the ICCA officers?

bruce

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <32EC72...@nwlink.com>...

Me.

They were informed why I pulled out of the Jakarta tourney (Junior-Israel
banning), and they chose to characterise it otherwise (apparently I didn't
want to part with my money, was how they put it).

They also characterised r.g.c.c. as 'inaccurate rumour' and 'hostile
speculation'.

The only listening done appeared to be with closed ears. Or brain already
set in concrete.

I have also received replies like:

'I get 100's of emails a day, I can't possibly go through this'

and

'I decline to answer at this stage'

Seems like ignoring to me.

Chris Whittington

>
> bruce
>

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<5cgldi$5...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

> mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
> : df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
>

> : >In article <5c84ur$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> : >Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> : >>Mr. Whittington, you are entitled to your opinion, however...

> : >>
> : >>* I do not see you organizing computer chess tournaments
> : >>* I do not see you organizing man-machine competitions
> : >>* I do not see you producing a quarterly journal
> : >>
> : >>Until you start making a positive contribution to computer chess, I
think
> : >>you should keep your negative attitude to yourself.
>

> : > apparently you do not understand the value of criticism and

dissent.
> : >negativity is in the eye of the beholder. what you call negative can
> : >be a vital contribution to the health and survival of an organization,
> : >if the organization responds to it in an intelligent way.
>
> : > by characterizing Chris's contributions as "negative", you have
> : >not only exhibited a tremendous bias, but you have shown a very
> : >"negative" attitude yourself.
>

> : Right Don, thats exactly the point. They are so arrogant, they don't
> : see that they show us their arrogance with any message they send us.
>

> : >you are certainly entitled to your

> : >opinion, but until you can recognize the positive contributions
> : >of others, perhaps you should keep your advice to yourself.
>
> : > thanks for proving Chris's point.

> : Yes. We all have to thank.
>
>
> : I would suggest these people in the ICCA should resign after having
> : shown these behaviour.
>
> : In my opinion ICCA should be assembled out of people that are not

> : arrogant and do listen to critics instead of asking persons giving
> : critics WHO they are.

>
> If you replace the current ICCA people by their exact "opposites" the
thing
> would be run by a bunch of schizo-insane-vindictive-radicals.

Hey, that would be cool.

Thorsten could be leader of the schizo-insane-vindictive-radicals.

Bob Hyatt could lead the firearm-toting, nigger-hating, drug-busting,
neo-nazi, weight lifting conservatives.

Then we could have a real bust-up.

Or we could have David fight it out with Goliath.
Kerrigan as David and Hyatt as Goliath.
I wnat to see that sling-shot :)

I could stand on the sidelines and tell you all you're a bunch of plonkers.

Or, we could stop charactising people as idiots and start being sensible:
Bob ?

Chris Whittington

[Robert Hyatt]

Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5cj6d1$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

: >I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job

: >as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
: >since it is surviving, it must be doing something right. Why don't you
: >spend as much time looking for good as you do bad?

: that's a nice principle. if i were trying to encourage a retarded
: child, rather than deal with an ossified bureaucracy, i might take
: that approach. however. speaking for myself, i don't like what ICCA
: did at Jakarta, and my goal is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
: i don't see how your suggested approach will contribute to that goal.

Not I yours....

: >ICCA has hosted a

: >dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
: >playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
: >result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
: >and is not serving the membership.

: Bob, those are not things that *i* said.

I'm not attributing everything said to you. However, the *thread* has stated
that and worse. I simply disagree. *strongly*.

: >*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen

: >to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
: >have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
: >mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

: gee Bob, with such a forgiving attitude you would have been right
: at home on the OJ jury.

Perhaps... however, it's not a *forgiving* attitude. Remember, there have been
nearly two dozen prior ICCA events. They each left a favorable impression. One
controversy doesn't mean it's time for the electric chair...

: >And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't

: >involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
: >events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
: >Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
: >more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
: >only seem capable of "talking".

: Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
: Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
: when i say it.

Not an ad hominem... rather a direct statement of fact. I explained the purpose
of the ICCA, and the audience to which it plays. I don't worry about what the
AMA does, nor what shows up in the New England Journal of Medicine, because I
assume *that* audience will make it what it expects. Therefore, you should either
write a chess program and compete awhile to get a feel for how the ICCA is really
doing, otherwise, let those that are actually involved first-hand take care of
this. Chris has a complaint. Many points are justified. At least he's been there
to see how things work...

: >The ICCA was formed to further the cause

: >of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,
: >but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
: >around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

: Bob, ICCA is not a world apart. it is part of the larger world
: in which we all live. it does things that affect the larger world.
: as such, everyone who is affected has the right to comment on and
: criticize it. i don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about
: the legal profession. i don't have to be politician to criticize
: politicians. i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.
: i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
: charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
: what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
: computer chess. ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they
: listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
: public flak until they start listening.

ANd I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It's no more immoral than it is
to fly on an airplane where a bolt was made in Jakarta. The tournament was not a
political blessing, nor a pardon for the problems they have. It was a group of
computer chess people getting together to see who had the best program. I don't
see *any* particular prestige gained by having an ICCA event. Perhaps to the
university, perhaps not. But in the big scheme of things, this isn't a big thing
at all...

[Robert Hyatt]

Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

: Peter W. Gillgasch <gil...@ilk.de> wrote in article
: <199701241941483419452@[194.121.104.134]>...
: > Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

: >
: > > --

: > > http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
: > >
: > > Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

: > > <5c5s5d$q...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

: > > > Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > > > > : Buried in the detail was the issue of an 'Honorarium' for the TD.
: > > The exact > : amount was not clear, but I assume it ran into 1000's of
: > > dollars. > > So far as I know, this has always been done.
: > >
: > > Really ?
: > >
: > > Are you referring to the Homg Kong championship (ie the tri--annual
: World
: > > Computer Championship), or to the WMCCC (yearly microcomputer events) ?
: > >
: > > Because they say they are all volunteers who don't get paid.
: >
: > FWIW IM Mike Valvo was introduced to us by the board of the ICCA
: > (Marsland, Levy, Beal, Van den Herik) at the WCCC in a way that made it
: > clear that:
: >
: > 1. The ICCA pays him for being there.
: > 2. Mike is a professional.
: > 3. The ICCA is happy to have him there since he has a lot of experience
: > doing this job.
: >
: > There was no objection against this, we all have been happy with Mike,

: > he did a very good job. I would even say that Mike is one of the coolest

: > tourney directors I ever dealt with, both in my life as a chess player
: > as well as in my life as program author.
: >
: > I wouldn't expect anyone to hang around in a place as HK and to deal
: > with the "legal problems" of us nutters without financial compensation.

: This is entirely fair enough. Someone brought in from outside, ok.

: But what if an ICCA organiser is Tournament Director ?

: As far as I am aware the TD's at the WMCC events for the past few years
: have been:

: Lyon 1991 TD: shared between Levy and van den Herik. Valvo was also
: there, but I think he was termed an 'arbiter'
: 1992 ?
: 1993 Munich TD: shared Levy and van den Herik
: 1994 ?
: 1995 Paderborn TD: shared Levy and van den Herik
: 1996 Jakarta TD: shared Marsland and van den Herik

: Was an Honorarium paid in these cases ?

: Don Beal said there's an Honorarium at Hong Kong.
: Bob Hyatt said Honorarium is 'normal' to be paid to the TD
: ICCA says their officials are volunteers and don't get paid.

: I'm confused by these apparently conflicting 'facts'.

: Hopefully there's a totally reasonable explanation ........

: Chris Whittington

Remember that my background is quite different. I've been to most ACM
events, and there we've always had an "outside" TD. Levy for many years,
and then Mike later. I don't recall any other TD's at those events, although
Danny Kopec did assist a time or two.

Not having been to ICCA WMCCC events before this year, I don't know who was
doing what. I do recall Mike doing it several times in the 80's because he
would come to the ACM events and discuss the "horrors" from the most recent
event...

Personally, I'd take a long look at the TD for future events, because there have
been some oddball decisions made. I'd rather have Mike doing that than any one
else I can imagine. Particularly since he is also an IM and can meaningfully
adjudicate games...

[brucemo]

Chris Whittington wrote:

> They were informed why I pulled out of the Jakarta tourney (Junior-Israel
> banning), and they chose to characterise it otherwise (apparently I didn't
> want to part with my money, was how they put it).

I don't think they should have put it like this. I didn't agree with this
characterization then and I don't now. If you said that your reason was X,
they shouldn't attempt to second-guess you.

I would love to see you enter CST in one of these (as whatever they and you
agree that you are, amateur or professional), be accepted, go, play, and do
well.

If anything weird happens at the tournament, there'd be two of us to argue
with them, if you so desired.

If the ICCA wants to ignore international politics (fine with me), they
should also should make an effort to ignore the interpersonal kind.

> They also characterised r.g.c.c. as 'inaccurate rumour' and 'hostile
> speculation'.

I think this is accurate. There were, and are, people who will attempt to
throw any sort of mud on the ICCA that they can find. People were making
all sorts of criticisms and claims, based upon few or no facts.

bruce

[Tom C. Kerrigan]

brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:

> These folks listened and decided. If you wanted to be in on the decision
> you could have contacted them. I did. I was angry about the Junior
> thing, and I sent email, and Marsland called me on the phone, and spoke
> with me long enough that my wife started to glare at me.

I missed the Junior thing. I've been trying to pick up hints as to what it
was, but people just keep calling it "the Junior thing." If somebody could
post a quick explanation, or maybe send me e-mail about this, it would be
greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Tom

[Rolf Tueschen]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <32EC72...@nwlink.com>...

>> Who are the members who were ignored by the ICCA officers?

>Me.

>They were informed why I pulled out of the Jakarta tourney (Junior-Israel

>banning), and they chose to characterise it otherwise (apparently I didn't
>want to part with my money, was how they put it).

>They also characterised r.g.c.c. as 'inaccurate rumour' and 'hostile
>speculation'.

>The only listening done appeared to be with closed ears. Or brain already
>set in concrete.

>I have also received replies like:

>'I get 100's of emails a day, I can't possibly go through this'

>and

>'I decline to answer at this stage'

>Seems like ignoring to me.

>Chris Whittington

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

Last autumn I translated an editorial of CSS editor Frederic Friedel. With
astonishment I read and posted in this group that Tony Marsland discussed each
and every mail with Friedel on the phone. Daily.

I was astonished because I never read s.th. of Tony Marsland in rgcc since Sept
96. And furthermore F. Friedel didn't seem to be a member of the ICCA staff.

I gave title *ICCA rather feudalistic than democratic* to my post. Got no
reaction ...

Ok, I'm no programmer and no expert. Therefore it's very informative to read
this thread months later. Don Beal yesterday wrote the first somewhat *open*
reaction.

What remains in question for the naive outsider is the following:
*If* the whole staff got no money at all (so Don Beal again) their public
behaviour is lacking logic. That's simply common sense, no? If you don't had to
hide s.th. you'd never be so nervous at questions from your members. Period.

Rolf <For More Democracy In ICCA.> Tueschen

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Tom C. Kerrigan <kerr...@merlin.pn.org> wrote in article
<5clp9i$o...@merlin.pn.org>...

In one sentence: it was stated by the ICCA that Junior was not welcome in
Jakarta because of Indonesian government discrimination against Israelis.

Later there was a huge amount of woffle and obfuscation and querying of
motives and attempts to fuzz the picture but my belief is quite simple:
they were banned on racial grounds.

CSTal (Whittington) and Arthur (Ravenek) withdrew as a consequence.

Rebel (Scroder) stated that if he had been going, he would have pulled out
over this.

MChess (Hirsch) made a similar statement.

Hyatt and Moreland engaged in a spirited defence of the ICCA. Megabytes of
bandwidth got used.

Get prepared for 10 million other stories, and pages more woffle ........

Chris Whittington

>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>

[brucemo]

Chris Whittington wrote:
>
> In one sentence: it was stated by the ICCA that Junior was not welcome in
> Jakarta because of Indonesian government discrimination against Israelis.
>
> Later there was a huge amount of woffle and obfuscation and querying of
> motives and attempts to fuzz the picture but my belief is quite simple:
> they were banned on racial grounds.

I'm responding at least in part for Tom, which is why I'm saying things that
you know about.

There is a long article in the current ICCAJ that attempts to provide an
explanation of what went on with this. The gist is that the Junior team
withdrew before all reasonable attempts to get visas had been pursued.

They also had the opportunity to play over the net, which they declined.

It is my understanding that the Israelis never actually applied for visas, so
visas were never denied, so it was difficult for the ICCA to argue the case
that they should be allowed to go to the tournament.

> CSTal (Whittington) and Arthur (Ravenek) withdrew as a consequence.

Here is the essential part of the 12-Sep-96 post that got everyone riled up:

"We did learn one political point from this event. It came as a surprise
to us that participants from Russia and Israel would require personal
visas. When we tried to secure a personal invitation for an Israeli
team we were advised that Indonesia did not recognize Israel. To cut a
long story short we were unable to get any kind of an invitation for the
Israeli participants, let alone a warm welcome. We learned this more
than a month after signing the contract.

"Since the contract did not contain any requirements regarding visas (we have
never experienced this problem before) we had no legal basis for
cancellation. In future we will always stipulate in the contract with
the hosts that all qualified participants must be granted visas."

Some folks read this, and the follow-up discussion, and dropped out of the
tournament.

I was mad about it, too, so I sent mail to Marsland. I got a phone call from
him. It was a long conversation, and I don't remember all of it, but I was
satisfied that the "long story" that he cut short was very long, very involved,
and cut quite a bit too short.

More of this story came out in subsequent posts. You can read the whole thing
in the ICCAJ article.

> Rebel (Scroder) stated that if he had been going, he would have pulled out
> over this.
>
> MChess (Hirsch) made a similar statement.

I would be very interested in seeing this! I have not seen ANY post from
Hirsch on this or any related subject. I spent about twenty minutes in
DejaNews looking for one just now. Please repost if you have it. If you don't
have it, could you perhaps be mistaken about having seen it?

> Hyatt and Moreland engaged in a spirited defence of the ICCA. Megabytes of
> bandwidth got used.

To no avail, apparently, seeing as nobody has given an inch in this whole
thing, and it's dragged on in one form or another for four months.

bruce

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Chris Whittington wrote:
> > This seems a strange argument. Editorial, by definition,
> > consists of the editor's personal views.
> Well that depends. [...]
> b) academic journal paid for by membership subscriptions - that's
> different; the editor has it as his duty to reflect the diversity of view,
> to adopt much higher standards of truth and not to use the journal as
> either a political platform, nor as an attack platform.

This seems to imply that JvdH has [ab]used his editorials in
ICCAJ in these ways. In fact, the editorial is almost always a rather
European-style philosophical ramble which is often not to my taste
but which has scarcely ever been any sort of attack or political
statement *except* in general support of computer chess; and it has
always clearly represented a personal view. JvdH has done enough for
computer chess that I'm very happy that he should be indulged a little.

> r.g.c.c. was dismissed in a couple of sentences.
> dissent was dismissed as "uninformed rumour and hostile speculation"

I think this rather understates the response. The RGCC debate
centred on two issues: the political regime in Jakarta, and the Ban
on Junior. On the first of these, there never really was anything
much to add: the debate, though heated, could have been had equally
about sporting links with South Africa, about the Moscow or other
Olympics, and lots of other such events. Whatever your personal views,
I hope we can at least agree that there *are* two sides to the debate,
and that those on the other side are not thereby irredeemably evil.
TM's stated view can be summarised as "it was Jakarta or nothing"; I
don't really see what more he could say that would further anyone's
cause. On the second issue, the debate on RGCC *was* uninformed rumour
and speculation. I know no more than anyone else what the truth of
the situation was; but ICCAJ 19/4 contains two pages of apparently
definitive information about the progress of events. The Junior team
contributes to ICCAJ; if they are unhappy with the Board's version,
then I suggest it is up to them to fire away rather than up to you or
me to second-guess what deficiencies there might be in that account.

> amateur/professional issue was dismissed as "we'll carry on as before"

This again is unfair. TM's article devotes more than a page
to this issue. His final sentence is "Since I cherish constructive
input on this topic, I again invite former participants in our computer-
chess events to compose their thoughts and come forward with considered
opinions on how to sort professionals from amateurs." I guess that
means you. Doesn't sound like dismissal or a closed mind to me. I
understand that you have a [possibly legitimate] gripe with the past
definitions; TM points out some of the problems and grey areas; let
us at least try to be forward-looking.

> No doubt you'll have read Schaeffer's comments in this thread, (Schaeffer
> used to do the accounts for ICCA until recently).

JS expresses himself rather forcefully. You presumably saw
Don Beal's comments, which set out the *current* Treasurer's view of
the accounts.

> And as someone who either gets ignored (as does Thorsten when he
> communicates with them), or receives replies such as "I decline to answer
> at this stage"; I'm rather inclined to doubt that I'ld be doing much more
> than wasting my time by sending them anything.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the way you express yourself.
People are entitled to have differing views, and to become upset
when those views are attacked in a hostile way which imputes
dishonest motives. Unfortunately, once the atmosphere has become
soured, it's difficult to get back to a reasoned debate.

> Plus to send in an article would:
> (a) allow ICCA moderation and censorship rights

It's an academic journal, and contributions are refereed,
and are published at editorial discretion. Nevertheless, if you
submit a letter to the editor responding to the articles in 19/4
in a reasoned way, I would *expect* that letter to be published
[possibly with an accompanying response from TM or JvdH]. *I*
would support publication even if I disagreed with every word you
said. But mere flamage will, and should, be binned.

> (b) if printed, be at least 3 months out of date

Inevitable. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing, just that
you have to write with one eye on the elapsed time, instead of in
instant-open-mouth-insert-foot mode.

> (c) be accepting their authority

Authority? Well, JvdH can publish or not; that's just
about the only authority "they" have. And if you write a good
letter and "they" don't publish, *then* you have cause for complaint
in other forums, such as this newsgroup.

> (d) its not my job to provide them with articles.

But it is. Everyone seriously involved with computer chess
has the duty of providing them with articles. Everyone currently so
involved has benefited from articles in ICCAJ. Those professionals
who write "commercial" programs on the backs of those articles and
then contribute nothing back are, in some measure, cheating all of
us. I'm happy for them to keep back *some* tricks of the trade, but
*everyone* can report *something* to help the community.

> r.g.c.c. is a far better platform for these. You might consider I write
> articles here :)

Yes, it's a better platform for "uninformed rumour and hostile
speculation"! OK, free and timely debate here is useful. But there is
*also* an important place for articles of record.

--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk

[mclane]

df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:

>In article <5cj6d1$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>>: your argument is basically, "America, love it or leave it".
>>: a good example of a false dichotomy.
>>
>>Works for me. If you don't like it, .... :)

> fortunately, some people are more open minded than you.
>i for one will continue to criticize and try to make America a
>better place, etc. if you don't like my criticism, you don't
>have to listen. it's that simple.

>>Nope... it is a sign that the ICCA is doing fine in most people's
>>opinion. If there is a large part of the membership that's unhappy,
>>exactly *how* can ICCA survive?

> the same way lots of poorly run businesses survive,
>in the short run. in the long run, maybe they won't survive.
>dissent can hasten the adjustment.

Why do you always have the same opinon than I have.
Strange....

>>Simple economics says it wouldn't.

> open your eyes Bob, the real world isn't always that simple.
>ask yourself why doesn't dynamite explode immediately? (after all,
>the exploded state is thermodynamically much more favorable.) ans:
>there is an energy barrier that has to be overcome.

>>If a small faction is not happy, that's life. I don't like a lot of things
>>that happen in the world. When possible, I choose to not participate in those
>>things I don't like. I don't gamble, but I don't go on tirades against
>>gambling interests and casinos in Mississippi, or dog tracks all over the
>>country, or horse tracks, or... The people that like that lifestyle are
>>welcome to it, and if it can survive without me, so be it.

> no, you go on tirades against people who criticize. (:-)

RIGHT.

>>I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job
>>as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
>>since it is surviving, it must be doing something right. Why don't you
>>spend as much time looking for good as you do bad?

> that's a nice principle. if i were trying to encourage a retarded
>child, rather than deal with an ossified bureaucracy, i might take
>that approach. however. speaking for myself, i don't like what ICCA
>did at Jakarta, and my goal is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
>i don't see how your suggested approach will contribute to that goal.

>>ICCA has hosted a

>>dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
>>playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
>>result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
>>and is not serving the membership.

> Bob, those are not things that *i* said.

Yes - bob mixes some stuff up. I hope he is more precise when
developing code in his chess program.... :-)
No - he is more precise - when he is NOT TALKING.

>>*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen
>>to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
>>have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
>>mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

> gee Bob, with such a forgiving attitude you would have been right
>at home on the OJ jury.

>>And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't

>>involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
>>events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
>>Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
>>more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
>>only seem capable of "talking".

> Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
>Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
>when i say it.

He does not understand. You have to be THEIR RACE !!
Only programmers are allowed to comment what ICCA does.

>>The ICCA was formed to further the cause
>>of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,
>>but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
>>around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

> Bob, ICCA is not a world apart. it is part of the larger world
>in which we all live. it does things that affect the larger world.

That stabilize tyrannic countries, e.g. Indonesia !

If it is different - please do the next championship in cuba.

>as such, everyone who is affected has the right to comment on and
>criticize it. i don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about
>the legal profession.

You have to be a women , or better: you have to be raped to find out
that raping is not nice - bob says ! What a pity: i am only a talker.
I think: raping females is bad. But - what a pita again: I am male!!
Only female can TALK or value about this crime.
I guess Bob is female.

> i don't have to be politician to criticize
>politicians.

Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay
and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
want to let the world destroy by politicians.
And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!
They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

> i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.
> i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
>charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
>what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
>computer chess.

Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

>ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they
>listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
>public flak until they start listening.

Me too.

[mclane]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

Sorry, I don't want to be OFF-TOPIC, but when I read your IDEAS about
WHY organisations SURVIVE and why not, your foolish simple darwinism,
I can't be quiet....

>I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job
>as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
>since it is surviving, it must be doing something right.

Thats the most stupid stuff I 've ever read. In which country do you
live ? Your words have television-serial-level (this time NOT
star-trek, maybe Dallas or baywatch...)

How can somebody have those naive look on the world ?!
Your survival of the fittest is maybe working in nature, but in live
only the mean people survive. Since when do companies survive
when they do right ?!?
Capitalism at it's best.

>Why don't you
>spend as much time looking for good as you do bad?

There are people doing much better jobs without icca.
And the others are more tolerant and more fair and open for critics
than icca.
Have you ever heard about GOOD CRITICS ?!
And what do you think a good critic is ?
Maybe you even don't understand that critic has not the target to
destroy but is need to make progress. When I work with programmers, I
like the program and I like the programmer. I have always critics. But
not to destroy or flame somebody. My only target is to make this
program better.

This is called criticism. Working on making something better.
Without saying: I don't like the way your program evaluated the
position here, you cannot make progress. If a certain code has made
this evalution, try to tune it, or throw it out.
Without saying:
I don't like the decision the ICCA has made. It should try to change
these kind of decisions, or the person in charge should resign (throw
out the bad code !) - no progress would be made.

DARWINISM !!

Your silly comment on critics: make an organisation yourself,
your comment: why don't you spend as much time in finding positive...
shows / outs that you have not understand the SENSE of critics in a
social society ! Or you have different values. Whatever.

> ICCA has hosted a
>dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
>playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
>result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
>and is not serving the membership.

You summary here is very SHORT! If one decision was wrong, and this
decision was really wrong - you can believe it - I would ask the
members of the organisation if I should resign, if they do trust me
and so, if I would be the president.

Our argumentation is not that simple than your above summary/statement
implies. We are not that hysterical. You should know this.

>*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen
>to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
>have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
>mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

BTW: an atom IS a universe !!

>And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't
>involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
>events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.

Therefore an outsider is not allowed to TALK or to say:
an unmoralic decision was unmoralic.

Have you ever thought about the point that an INSIDER does not critic
his organisation because he is afraid that he could be thrown out of
it, and that NO CRITICS WITHIN AN ORGANSIATION does not show us that
there are NO problems in it ?!

>Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA.

Right. I would critic the government, scientology, microsoft,
chessbase the same way.

This has something to do with the PRODUCT or the way they sell their
products.

> I'm much
>more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"...

Brilliant.
I have never said I am a chess programmer. It is my hobby and I like
to buy, play, test and change programs.
You don't have to listen to me. I do not force anybody.
On the other side I won't be quiet because somebody tells it, or says:
you are not in our kindergarder, play somewhere else.

For me, working with chris is a nice thing to spare and spent my
hobby.
Also if you work with somebody together on ONE TARGET, you react like
a team and friendship grows.

Doing this hobby for many years now, I listen to many thoughts and
wishes of programmers and have much communication with them, because I
like them. Of course you can throw me out of THIS AREA and say:
Buy first a ticket and then complain. Or: you are not allowed to
complain because of this or that. This shows me only your strange
values. I don't care if you do so. I have more interests in making
programs better, than some programmers have, and I have more interests
in seeing a program grow stronger than some commercial-exploiters
have.

Believe it - or not.

>you on the other hand
>only seem capable of "talking".

Right. And I talk about chess programs. I replay games, play myself,
try to find out about them and TALK later about the programs and my
results.
This is of course only talking. Not that important like the things
ICCA does. But I could also adjudicate a game the one day for the
chess-position, and the other day asking the programmer:
is your program capable of winning this technical won endgame ?!
I could also decide making the next tournament in cuba, or I could
decide to tell the sponsor : if you want to participate, take a look
at crafty-code in the internet....
But I prefer in talking instead of doing such bullshit.
Let the PRODUCERS be producers, but don't forbid me to value their
products.

>The ICCA was formed to further the cause
>of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,

hahaha ! It is very helping and will further the cause of chess if van
den herik adjudicates one day for this reason and the other day for
the vice-versa reason. Bob - you only react cynical on critics.
Is that all you are capable off ?

>but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
>around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

No . I do like what Levy, Friedel, Van den Herik, Marsland and and and
have done. I have respect for anything. But I do not like to see them
involved in wrong situations/decisions/values.

Of course they can do whatever they want. But if they have a FUNCTION
in a community, and they - IMO - misuse it, I want to comment on it.
You don't have to take the coments serious.
As I am not taking serious when Frederic Friedel says: I am not
commercially connected to ChessBase, I am a journalist.

Or when Ossi Weiner says: this Genius version is stronger than the
version before.

Or when Friedel says Berliner implies that Botwinnik is a liar.

Or when Computer-Schach & Spiele says: Nimzo is a strategist.

When Tom Kerrigan says that his program beats yours, MY WAY IS TO
PROVE THIS BY FINDING OUT MYSELF:
You can flame him instead - that's maybe your way of finding out
something.
I have different ways.

BTW: Stobor beats crafty !!

What a pity. I will send you any game. Wait...

The problem with crafty and the autoplayer is, that crafty seems to
print out the O-O wrong, and therefore the games stop.-
I have sent you this once a while before, but still crafty stops on
the auto232-autoplayer. So I have to do the games manually.

Here another Stobor vs. Crafty game:

[Event "60 / 60"]
[Site "p120"]
[Date ""]
[Round "2"]
[White "crafty"]
[Black "stobor"]
[Result "1/2"]

1. e3 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 d5 4. Bd3 c5 5. O-O Nc6 6. c4 dxc4 7. Bxc4
a6 8. Ne5
Bd7 9. Nc3 cxd4 10. exd4 Be7 11. Bf4 O-O 12. d5 Nxe5 13. Bxe5 exd5 14.
Nxd5
Bc6 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Qxd8 Bxd8 17. Rfe1 b5 18. Bd3 Re8 19. Rad1 Bb6
20. Bf5
Rad8 21. Rxd8 Bxd8 22. Kf1 f6 23. Bc3 Rxe1+ 24. Bxe1 g6 25. Be6+ Kf8
26. Bb4+
Ke8 27. a3 h5 28. Bc3 Ke7 29. Bc8 a5 30. g3 a4 31. Bd4 Kd6 32. Ke2 Kd5
33. Kd3
f5 34. Ke3 Bg5+ 35. f4 Be7 36. Kd3 Bd6 37. Bf6 Bc5 38. Kd2 Bg1 39. Ke2
Bxh2
40. Kf2 Kd6 41. Bh4 Bd5 42. Ba6 Kc6 43. Bd8 Kd7 44. Bb6 Bc6 45. Be3
Kd6 46.
Bc1 Kc5 47. Bc8 Kc4 48. Be6+ Kd3 49. Bf7 Kc2 50. Be3 Kxb2 51. Bc5 h4
52. gxh4
Bxf4 53. Bxg6 Be4 54. Bh5 Bc1 55. Bf7 Kc2 56. h5 Kd3 57. Bg6 Bh6 58.
Be8 Kc4
59. Bb4 f4 60. Bd7 Bg7 61. Be6+ Kd3 62. Bd7 Bd4+ 63. Kf1 Kc4 64. Be6+
Bd5 65.
Bxd5+ Kxd5 66. h6 f3 67. h7 Ke4 68. Bc5 Bf6 69. Ke1 Kd5 70. Be7 Bh8
71. Kf2
Ke4 72. Bd6 Bg7 73. Bc5 Be5 74. Bf8 Bd4+ 75. Kf1 Bb2 76. Bh6 Kf5 77.
Bc1 Bf6
78. Kf2 Ke4 79. Bd2 Bd4+ 80. Kf1 Kd3 81. Ba5 Be5 1/2

Again I thiink that stobor played this 2nd game better than crafty.
But stobor has problems in the endgame (lack of knowledge).

[mclane]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

> One
>controversy doesn't mean it's time for the electric chair...

We don't have an electric chair here in germany. You have !
That shows much - doesn't it

>: >And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't
>: >involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
>: >events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
>: >Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
>: >more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
>: >only seem capable of "talking".

>: Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
>: Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
>: when i say it.

>Not an ad hominem... rather a direct statement of fact. I explained the purpose
>of the ICCA, and the audience to which it plays. I don't worry about what the
>AMA does, nor what shows up in the New England Journal of Medicine, because I
>assume *that* audience will make it what it expects. Therefore, you should either
>write a chess program and compete awhile to get a feel for how the ICCA is really
>doing, otherwise, let those that are actually involved first-hand take care of
>this. Chris has a complaint. Many points are justified. At least he's been there
>to see how things work...

Chris has a complaint. Many points are justified. And what is the
answer of the ICCA ?

So - you see how the shit on demands of their members....
not anybody gets a telephone call by marsland, like bruce gets.

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: Sorry, I don't want to be OFF-TOPIC, but when I read your IDEAS about
: WHY organisations SURVIVE and why not, your foolish simple darwinism,
: I can't be quiet....

: >I think the ICCA is the same. If they are really doing such a rotton job
: >as you'd like to puport, the organization simply couldn't survive. Ergo,
: >since it is surviving, it must be doing something right.

: Thats the most stupid stuff I 've ever read. In which country do you
: live ? Your words have television-serial-level (this time NOT
: star-trek, maybe Dallas or baywatch...)

: How can somebody have those naive look on the world ?!
: Your survival of the fittest is maybe working in nature, but in live
: only the mean people survive. Since when do companies survive
: when they do right ?!?
: Capitalism at it's best.

Maybe that's the way it works where you live. If so, you ought to move.
Over here, if a company doesn't do what people want it to, it goes under.
No government subsidies (maybe Chrysler was an exception, but that's another
story)...

: >Why don't you

: >spend as much time looking for good as you do bad?

: There are people doing much better jobs without icca.
: And the others are more tolerant and more fair and open for critics
: than icca.
: Have you ever heard about GOOD CRITICS ?!
: And what do you think a good critic is ?
: Maybe you even don't understand that critic has not the target to
: destroy but is need to make progress. When I work with programmers, I
: like the program and I like the programmer. I have always critics. But
: not to destroy or flame somebody. My only target is to make this
: program better.

: This is called criticism. Working on making something better.
: Without saying: I don't like the way your program evaluated the
: position here, you cannot make progress. If a certain code has made
: this evalution, try to tune it, or throw it out.
: Without saying:
: I don't like the decision the ICCA has made. It should try to change
: these kind of decisions, or the person in charge should resign (throw
: out the bad code !) - no progress would be made.

: DARWINISM !!

: Your silly comment on critics: make an organisation yourself,
: your comment: why don't you spend as much time in finding positive...
: shows / outs that you have not understand the SENSE of critics in a
: social society ! Or you have different values. Whatever.

We certainly have different values. I'm happy with mine.

: > ICCA has hosted a

: >dozen or more WMCCC events, and a half dozen WCCC events, and has chosen a
: >playing site *exactly one time* that turned out to be problematic. And as a
: >result of that, the organization is corrupt, filled with liars and thiefs,
: >and is not serving the membership.

: You summary here is very SHORT! If one decision was wrong, and this
: decision was really wrong - you can believe it - I would ask the
: members of the organisation if I should resign, if they do trust me
: and so, if I would be the president.

: Our argumentation is not that simple than your above summary/statement
: implies. We are not that hysterical. You should know this.

Then why can't you comment on the above statement? There's nothing false
in it. You can certainly ramble, but that doesn't help much..

: >*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen

: >to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
: >have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
: >mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

: BTW: an atom IS a universe !!

Depends on your vantage point of course.

: >And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't

: >involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
: >events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.

: Therefore an outsider is not allowed to TALK or to say:
: an unmoralic decision was unmoralic.

An outsider doesn't have a lot of business ranting and raving about an
organization that has been fulfilling it's primary charter for 20 years.
It was founded to promote computer chess, it has promoted computer chess,
end of story. The whiners and complainers are, for the most part, off into
politics. That's fine. Protest the Indonesian regime. But cut the crap
about continually bashing the ICCA, it's board, the people that went to
Jakarta, and so forth. That gets old... About 99% of what is discussed is
hearsay anyway, and if it weren't for the horrible echo in this newsgroup,
it would have long since died away.

: Have you ever thought about the point that an INSIDER does not critic

: his organisation because he is afraid that he could be thrown out of
: it, and that NO CRITICS WITHIN AN ORGANSIATION does not show us that
: there are NO problems in it ?!

No, and that's horsecrap. I'm an "insider" and I raised a question about
amateur status vs professional status. Chris made the point, and I reacted
with less than full understanding. I now understand why CSTal was not an
amateur program and fully believe it was the correct decision. The 25%
income rule was not the issue. Chris's company makes money selling games.
Just because less than 25% of profits come from chess does not make him an
amateur, any more than a company like Hewlett-Packard could field an amateur
entry. In any case, I raised the issue, and got a quick and reasonable answer.
Most of the whiners here have *never* asked... they just echo...

: >Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA.

I'm sorry, but this is a stupid remark. I have been to ICCA events. I
have been involved in cases where (for example) an incorrect pairing was
done. I protested. Once Hal Bogner protested with me. In each case,
the TD said "I made a mistake" and fixed the problem. That should have
been handled at the tournament, and *if* it happened as purported, I would
have pushed to have the TD fired and done my best to make sure he didn't
repeat again. However that is *not* the ICCA, that was a single person that
*might* have used poor judgement. There are ways to protest such an action
at a tournament. I've handled such protests myself in years past. I've never
seen things not satisfactorily resolved.

: I could also decide making the next tournament in cuba, or I could

: decide to tell the sponsor : if you want to participate, take a look
: at crafty-code in the internet....

ICCA didn't do that, *I* did that. I was originally hoping they would
enter and operate crafty. This was all explained carefully months ago.

: But I prefer in talking instead of doing such bullshit.

: Let the PRODUCERS be producers, but don't forbid me to value their
: products.

Value what you want, but it would sure be nice if you had complete data
before blasting off on a mission. The Junior case was but one example.
It was explained fully in the JICCA, and the explanation matches with the
facts that I was aware of before and during the tournament. And yet we
keep seeing this "Junior was banned" crapola...

: >The ICCA was formed to further the cause

: >of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,

: hahaha ! It is very helping and will further the cause of chess if van
: den herik adjudicates one day for this reason and the other day for
: the vice-versa reason. Bob - you only react cynical on critics.
: Is that all you are capable off ?

I'm capable of many things, including making informed decisions. If Jaap
screwed up, he ought not ever be a TD again. I'll ask questions about this
myself. However, I might add, that there have been plenty of commercial
programmers that also went way beyond the rules, from fixing the outcomes of
games, to refusing to move after the program had annouced a move, to adjusting
a program during play, to making a program play a move on demand, etc. There's
nothing that particularly guarantees that a TD can't also make mistakes.
*however* it takes someone making a formal protest to bring this to light and
prevent it from happening again. Shouting on the newsgroups certainly isn't
going to rectify anything...

: >but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development

: >around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

: No . I do like what Levy, Friedel, Van den Herik, Marsland and and and
: have done. I have respect for anything. But I do not like to see them
: involved in wrong situations/decisions/values.

Then they need some sort of devine intervention, because the last time I looked
the definition of "civilized man" was "man who learns from his mistakes". I
still make them, I doubt Tony and the rest are any better. But so far, I have
not seen any gross errors of judgement myself... which is contrary to what you'd
read in this newsgroup on occasion..

: Of course they can do whatever they want. But if they have a FUNCTION

: in a community, and they - IMO - misuse it, I want to comment on it.
: You don't have to take the coments serious.

Comment all you want. There's nothing wrong with that. But to keep recanting
the same tired story over and over, particularly when many facts are distorted
beyond recognition, is *not* going to be productive.

: As I am not taking serious when Frederic Friedel says: I am not

: commercially connected to ChessBase, I am a journalist.

I don't care squat about Frederic... I've maybe met him once or twice.
We are not friends. We are not enemies. We are barely acquaintances.
What he writes and where he writes it doesn't affect me since I don't buy
commercial chess software and don't read German chess publications. That's
your problem to solve if you do, since I can't tell what he writes and am
not interested particularly anyway.

: Or when Ossi Weiner says: this Genius version is stronger than the
: version before.

Again, everyone pounds their chests here. As I've said many times, the
current group of programs are better, but not significantly better. That's
mostly hyperbole. However, I'm use to hype, since it's gone on in computer
chess since the first commercial program hit the market. Or maybe that was
the second, so that there was *competition* for sales...

: Or when Friedel says Berliner implies that Botwinnik is a liar.

Berliner did say that. I also believe him. I didn't like the *way* he
said it, but I agree 100% with *what* he said...

: Or when Computer-Schach & Spiele says: Nimzo is a strategist.

Or when you say crafty is a knowledge-based program rather than a very fast
searcher? :)

: When Tom Kerrigan says that his program beats yours, MY WAY IS TO

: PROVE THIS BY FINDING OUT MYSELF:

My way is the same way. I've played him many times. I don't hide, I don't
make up results, because it's impossible to not be found out. Go search
on ICC to find out how Crafty does against *anyone*. I can't hide that nor
fake the data, and I don't secretly use a Cray and say I'm using a P6, because
there are other P6 craftys that perform similarly.

: You can flame him instead - that's maybe your way of finding out

I guess either I can't read, or I can't follow your logic. You emailed me
one draw, this is the second draw, and "Stobor beats Crafty"... does beat
mean something else in your language?

And I suppose I'm supposed to interpret your last line as "Stobor outplays
Crafty except when it comes to the endgame, but that is really all that
matters because Stobor can't play endings very well." Isn't there something
wrong with that logic? Is that even logic? Perhaps Reubin Fine will roll
over in his grave over that. If your goal is to find the best tactical
program, Crafty's likely not going to be it. Ferret is *much* faster. If
you want to find the best endgame player, Crafty's likely not it. However,
if you want a good *chess player* Crafty can compete because it can do many
things reasonably well, and all these things add up to sometimes pretty chess,
sometimes hopeless looking chess. I'm working on it. But you should re-read
your last bit of logic as I, a very long-time programmer and one who claims
to understand basic logic, can't follow you at all...

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:

Actually I'm *very precise* when I talk. It simply requires basic reading
comprehension and a willingness to read for understanding, not an interest
in reading only for what can be used to further the wars...

: >>*IF* we all consider Jakarta a huge mistake (which, by the way I don't happen

: >>to) that is just one event that caused difficulties out of all the events they
: >>have sanctioned in the past. This makes the old "mountain out of a molehill"
: >>mataphor meaningless... more like making a universe out of an atom...

: > gee Bob, with such a forgiving attitude you would have been right
: >at home on the OJ jury.

: >>And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't
: >>involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
: >>events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
: >>Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
: >>more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
: >>only seem capable of "talking".

: > Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
: >Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
: >when i say it.
: He does not understand. You have to be THEIR RACE !!
: Only programmers are allowed to comment what ICCA does.

Exactly who was affected by the Jakarta tournament? Only the programmers. Who
else visited, or would have visited, who was affected? It's a computer chess
*programmer* event, period. It's not done as a spectacular event, it's dont
to get chess programmers together, have a competition, share ideas if that is
still possible, and promote interest by others. There's no big audience,
there's no paid admission, this isn't hard to figure out IMHO..

: >>The ICCA was formed to further the cause

: >>of computer chess, not as a political action group, not as a protest group,
: >>but solely to do everything possible to encourage computer chess development
: >>around the world. That "charter" seems to be overlooked frequently here.

: > Bob, ICCA is not a world apart. it is part of the larger world
: >in which we all live. it does things that affect the larger world.

: That stabilize tyrannic countries, e.g. Indonesia !

: If it is different - please do the next championship in cuba.

THe ICCA is really a powerful organization to be able to stabilize Indonesia. I
guess it has far more power exerts more influence on world politics than I ever
imagined. hmmm...

: >as such, everyone who is affected has the right to comment on and

: >criticize it. i don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about
: >the legal profession.

: You have to be a women , or better: you have to be raped to find out
: that raping is not nice - bob says ! What a pity: i am only a talker.
: I think: raping females is bad. But - what a pita again: I am male!!
: Only female can TALK or value about this crime.
: I guess Bob is female.

Strange twisted mind you have there. I'd suggest counseling. I didn't
mention rape, and your comment goes beyond ignorance. Once again simply
trying to pick words to generate outrage. Doesn't wash with me...

: > i don't have to be politician to criticize
: >politicians.

: Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay
: and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
: And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
: want to let the world destroy by politicians.

How about you stop putting words into my mouth? It does tend to wear
thin and it makes you look like an idiot. My initial comment was that the
WMCCC event was *not* a bad event. The participants had a good time. The
competition was exciting. The event went off as planned. A very few didn't
show up. End of story. If the participants weren't bent out of shape, why
should anyone listen to *you*??

: And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!

: They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

: Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
: germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
: intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

I begin to see the great urgency to develop the retroactive abortion pill
in Europe too.

: > i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.

: > i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
: >charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
: >what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
: >computer chess.

: Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

What does this mean? I don't see anything immoral and neither do a lot of
other folks. Interesting that the ones screaming the loudest were not among
the participants *or* "possible participants". Ergo, if you don't like the
event, that is your business. From what I've heard from those there, it was
a lot of fun.

: >ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they

: >listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
: >public flak until they start listening.

: Me too.

Only if they (a) get flak from many, rather than a few prattling on and on
about old news; (b) get flak directly, rather than by inuendo, implication,
and outright lies; and (c) are asked to correct specific problems first-hand.
So far, they haven't gotten anything formal, although you'd think they had from
the noise here. This is a public forum, not an ICCA suggestion box. I don't
expect them to take *any* action based on the stuff posted here, except to
possibly puke...

:)

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: > One

: >controversy doesn't mean it's time for the electric chair...

: We don't have an electric chair here in germany. You have !

: That shows much - doesn't it

Perhaps that's a big part of your problem then...

: >: >And then there's your input... you don't write chess programs, you aren't

: >: >involved in developing chess programs, you don't compete in computer chess
: >: >events, yet *this* is exactly the group that the ICCA was formed to serve.
: >: >Yet you are one of the more vitrolic posters concerning the ICCA. I'm much
: >: >more likely to listen to Chris because he "does"... you on the other hand
: >: >only seem capable of "talking".

: >: Bob, the above is nothing but an ad hominem. if it is valid for
: >: Chris to say that ICCA needs to listen to dissent, it is just as valid
: >: when i say it.

: >Not an ad hominem... rather a direct statement of fact. I explained the purpose
: >of the ICCA, and the audience to which it plays. I don't worry about what the
: >AMA does, nor what shows up in the New England Journal of Medicine, because I
: >assume *that* audience will make it what it expects. Therefore, you should either
: >write a chess program and compete awhile to get a feel for how the ICCA is really
: >doing, otherwise, let those that are actually involved first-hand take care of
: >this. Chris has a complaint. Many points are justified. At least he's been there
: >to see how things work...

: Chris has a complaint. Many points are justified. And what is the

: answer of the ICCA ?

How about some direct complaints from Chris? I'm aware of his amateur/
commercial complaint, and after having had it explained carefully, I personally
agree with the ICCA. Chris told us a "snippet" of information about this,
namely that he made less than 25% of his income from chess. On the surface,
that sounds convincing. But then you find out that he made 100% of his income
from computer games. And the story sounds completely different in that light.

Apparently Chris had a dispute with the ICCA over an alleged cheating event at
an ICCA event. All I've heard is that he did not make a move after his program
had announced it, which is *strictly* against the ICCA chess tournament rules.
This happened many years ago, and I don't particularly attach any meaning to this
today. He's 10 years older, he made a mistake, and it's behind him. If he carries
a grudge, that's his to get over. And I don't buy the argument that "X" did the
same thing and got away with it. Wrong is wrong, and every known case of rules
violation should be dealt with.

Other than the above two issues, I've heard nothing else from Chris on the
ICCA subject. If there are others, let's hear 'em and figure out who did what
to whom. Right now you only like to mention Chris as one that is unhappy, and
give lots of third-party discussion that could be much more accurate coming from
the original source. Much like the Junior situation should have been handled
here...

: So - you see how the shit on demands of their members....

: not anybody gets a telephone call by marsland, like bruce gets.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Don, have *you* directly requested
anything from the ICCA... *directly*?? If so, please post your request to
them and the reply (if any.) Again, things you post here don't count. I mean
a direct email to marsland or a regular stamped envelope with a letter inside.

They can't ignore what they don't receive. I've known Tony for a very long
time, and was never of the opinion he could read minds. Perhaps even if he
could, you might be exempt... if you know what I mean. :)

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <32EF9F...@nwlink.com>...

Yes, I could be mistaken.

But I do have the idea in my head that Hirsch was bothered enough to make
some sort of comment along the lines above.

Although I'm not quite sure where this idea comes from.

He does read this news group, so ......

Anyway, apologies if my memory served me wrong.

Chris Whittington

>
> > Hyatt and Moreland engaged in a spirited defence of the ICCA. Megabytes
of
> > bandwidth got used.
>
> To no avail, apparently, seeing as nobody has given an inch in this whole

> thing, and it's dragged on in one form or another for four months.
>
> bruce
>

[Robert Hyatt]

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

: >: >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: >: >Oh boy, that's so mean, so low. When people are forced to use such tools of

: >: >disinformation it's not long before they vanish from power. If ever they had
: >: >some. Schnickschnack.

: >: >As far as known publicly CW did contribute much more *to computer chess* than
: >: >his critic (?) seems (?) to know.

: >: >Rolf <What must be conceded.> Tueschen

: >: I heard and read much about Jonathan Schaeffer, but I did not know
: >: that his IQ is that of a child or that he is that arrogant.

: >: I still can't believe that he was in person. Maybe a joke by somebody
: >: else misusing his email...

: >: Unbelievable...

: >If you take the entire post from above, eliminate all the crap, and just keep
: >the useful stuff, and then divide this into the cost to transmit this crap all
: >over the world, you get an infinite cost, because there is *no* useful content
: >at all. The same can be said about my post here as well, unfortunately, but
: >for crying out loud, I'd like to find at least *one* interesting post out of
: >every 20 or so. Today's like wading in a pig sty... no matter where I step
: >it's always in crap...
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: Yes and no.

: Bob Hyatt as always saw some points. And from his view of must-support a dear
: old friend (Mr./Prof, Sxhaeffer) he's quite right. What's the content of the
: above --- all crap. He felt like wading in a pig sty ...

: Very tasteful indeed. But still comprehensible ...

: But what Bob Hyatt seems to have overlooked is another very important point.
: And that is the fact -- the fact simply as such --- that a very intelligent and
: educated expert as Mr. Schaeffer jumped into this group, gave verdict over CW
: without ANY facts at all, and finally got into a rather mad fight against Don
: Fong. The latter point proved my former judgement very well but I didn't know
: it at the time.

I'm sorry, but your judgement must be very bad indeed. Jonathan and Don Fong
crossed swords on the aborted Tinsley match. Don wasn't involved, didn't know
anything at all about what went on, but decided Jonathan was a poor sport for
letting Tinsley resign and give Chinook the world title, regardless of whether
Tinsley wanted to do this... Don knew better than Tinsley what was reasonable
conduct of course... However, as far as Jonathan "giving verdict over CW with
no facts" you are wrong... You ought to (a) figure out where Tony Marsland
works; (b) figure out where Jonathan works; (c) decide whether there's a slight
chance they talk to each other, since they are within shouting distance in the
same building... and then reconsider your remark... Perhaps it's you that are
missing some important facts...

: As concerns the CW point I could have left the scandal aside. But what forced
: me to show up was an indisposition caused by Schaeffer's attack. His shifting.
: His lacking all possible arguments.

: And now the same by Bob. Unbelievable. Complete deceiption. God came down to
: earth. Lost all guru-like calmness. And what does it mean? Well, that Bob
: jumped into the ring, saying *if you continue playing on Jonathan, you'll have
: to know that I'm behind him, you'll have to fight me; would you dare that
: too??*. The same argument (!) for ICCA.

I'm sorry, but I simply can't parse and understand the above. What deception?
I'm not supporting Jonathan because he's Jonathan... I'm supporting the ICCA
because I happen to believe it has done what I want to see done over the years,
that is foster computer chess development and interest. I didn't vote to form
it to pursue human rights violations or to save the whales. There are already
organizations that tackle those problems...

: No, Bob, we won't loose our last god. Jonathan is ok. We can't see why but he
: surely had his reasons. Perhaps you know them too. So Bob, please, take my
: apologies. I will clean all the pig shit at your feet. And I will kiss your
: toes one after another. The big one and the next a little curved one. And so
: on.

Not in this lifetime you won't... :)

: The sun is shining again.

: And if they're not dead ...

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Dr A. N. Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote in article
<32EFA9...@maths.nott.ac.uk>...

> Chris Whittington wrote:
> > > This seems a strange argument. Editorial, by definition,
> > > consists of the editor's personal views.
> > Well that depends. [...]
> > b) academic journal paid for by membership subscriptions - that's
> > different; the editor has it as his duty to reflect the diversity of
view,
> > to adopt much higher standards of truth and not to use the journal as
> > either a political platform, nor as an attack platform.
>
> This seems to imply that JvdH has [ab]used his editorials in
> ICCAJ in these ways. In fact, the editorial is almost always a rather
> European-style philosophical ramble which is often not to my taste
> but which has scarcely ever been any sort of attack or political
> statement *except* in general support of computer chess; and it has
> always clearly represented a personal view.

I wasn't referring to the 'editorial' editorial, but to the totality of the
journal.

And I wouldn't use the word 'abuse'. The journal and its structure is as it
is. What you get is how it is.

The philosophical ramble at the beginning may well contain gems of wisdom,
but it seems to be so literally translated from the Dutch, that I find it
incomprehensible - a bit like a Teuchen posting.

And surely you accept that the journal (in totality) has been used as an
attack platform ?
Botwinnik ?

> JvdH has done enough for
> computer chess that I'm very happy that he should be indulged a little.

I don't have a problem with that. Despite suggestions from others to the
contrary I have no personal animosity towards him. I find many of his
decisions at tournaments inexplicable, and I think he has a tendency to
blunder in feet first, but he's human enough, no robot in Herik.

>
> > r.g.c.c. was dismissed in a couple of sentences.
> > dissent was dismissed as "uninformed rumour and hostile speculation"
>
> I think this rather understates the response. The RGCC debate
> centred on two issues: the political regime in Jakarta, and the Ban
> on Junior. On the first of these, there never really was anything
> much to add: the debate, though heated, could have been had equally
> about sporting links with South Africa, about the Moscow or other
> Olympics, and lots of other such events. Whatever your personal views,
> I hope we can at least agree that there *are* two sides to the debate,
> and that those on the other side are not thereby irredeemably evil.

Yes. If you (or anyone) considers that my position is that the opposing
view is 'irredeemably evil' then you've not been reading *my* posts.

> TM's stated view can be summarised as "it was Jakarta or nothing"; I
> don't really see what more he could say that would further anyone's
> cause. On the second issue, the debate on RGCC *was* uninformed rumour
> and speculation. I know no more than anyone else what the truth of
> the situation was; but ICCAJ 19/4 contains two pages of apparently
> definitive information about the progress of events.

Why is it 'apparently definitive' ? Because its in print ? Because its a
'journal' ?

Why do factoids wrapped up in the 'right' wrapping paper have to be any
more correct that 'factoids' wrapped up in the 'wrong' paper ?

> The Junior team
> contributes to ICCAJ; if they are unhappy with the Board's version,
> then I suggest it is up to them to fire away rather than up to you or
> me to second-guess what deficiencies there might be in that account.

Indeed true. I've always been concerned about the lack of information from
Israel.

>
> > amateur/professional issue was dismissed as "we'll carry on as before"
>
> This again is unfair. TM's article devotes more than a page
> to this issue. His final sentence is "Since I cherish constructive
> input on this topic, I again invite former participants in our computer-
> chess events to compose their thoughts and come forward with considered
> opinions on how to sort professionals from amateurs." I guess that
> means you. Doesn't sound like dismissal or a closed mind to me. I
> understand that you have a [possibly legitimate] gripe with the past
> definitions; TM points out some of the problems and grey areas; let
> us at least try to be forward-looking.

My proposal always was, and always will be: stop sorting - any sort rule
can be exposed as stupid, so don't do it.

My belief is that the principal reason that there is any differentiation is
to be able to extract $1000 from commercial programmers in entry fees.

Which is why I am interested in how the financial take from these tourneys
gets spent.

They have maintained that they welcome proposals on the sort process. I'm
interested in *no* sort process.

So they will be carrying on as normal.

>
> > No doubt you'll have read Schaeffer's comments in this thread,
(Schaeffer
> > used to do the accounts for ICCA until recently).
>
> JS expresses himself rather forcefully. You presumably saw
> Don Beal's comments, which set out the *current* Treasurer's view of
> the accounts.
>
> > And as someone who either gets ignored (as does Thorsten when he
> > communicates with them), or receives replies such as "I decline to
answer
> > at this stage"; I'm rather inclined to doubt that I'ld be doing much
more
> > than wasting my time by sending them anything.
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the way you express yourself.

Perhaps :)

> People are entitled to have differing views, and to become upset
> when those views are attacked in a hostile way which imputes
> dishonest motives.

I've been asking questions.

These questions have revealed that, contrary to statements that ICCA
officers are not paid and are volunteers, at least one ICCA officer has
been paid (although it is claimed to be a payment when he is not acting as
an ICCA officer, but is at an ICCA tournament).

I am interested in discovering the truth.

If you think I am implying dishonest motives, well, you're free to think
that.

But, if various facts don't add up - I'll carry on asking questions. I'm
also free to do that. I believe that there are still areas where positions
and facts are at variance, so I'll be returning to that issue in due
course.

I'm aware that there is immense hostility to these questions - but that
only serves to provide me with more energy to get the answers.

> Unfortunately, once the atmosphere has become
> soured, it's difficult to get back to a reasoned debate.

Indeed. Its a shame. And it takes more than one to do it.

>
> > Plus to send in an article would:
> > (a) allow ICCA moderation and censorship rights
>
> It's an academic journal, and contributions are refereed,
> and are published at editorial discretion. Nevertheless, if you
> submit a letter to the editor responding to the articles in 19/4
> in a reasoned way, I would *expect* that letter to be published
> [possibly with an accompanying response from TM or JvdH]. *I*
> would support publication even if I disagreed with every word you
> said. But mere flamage will, and should, be binned.

I agree, flamage should be binned.

But I have too many points of difference with the ICCA, and there is too
much personal animosity (I claim from *their* direction towards me) for me
to get involved in writing material for their journal.

Chris Whittington

[Robert Hyatt]

Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Makes me feel better, as I had this same feeling on occasion. :)
I had always assumed that this "section" was simply poetic musings
that were maybe meant to be vague/confusing at times. I bet I haven't
read that page in the last N issues however. :)

: And surely you accept that the journal (in totality) has been used as an

: attack platform ?
: Botwinnik ?

I didn't like the Botvinnik article as I posted when it first appeared.
I agree that what Botvinnik wrote was really poor (in that particular
case) and that he had likely actually "cooked" his data, but I didn't
like the tone of the rebuttal either. In fact, it sounded like it might
have been lifted from this newsgroup. There's plenty of that type of
vitrol around here...

: > JvdH has done enough for

: > computer chess that I'm very happy that he should be indulged a little.

: I don't have a problem with that. Despite suggestions from others to the
: contrary I have no personal animosity towards him. I find many of his
: decisions at tournaments inexplicable, and I think he has a tendency to
: blunder in feet first, but he's human enough, no robot in Herik.

From comments heard third hand, I'd agree with you. I believe that Jaap
is much more of a politician than he is a technician, and seems to try to
make politically correct decisions at times, which are, on occasion, contrary
to technical aspects.

: >
: > > r.g.c.c. was dismissed in a couple of sentences.

: > > dissent was dismissed as "uninformed rumour and hostile speculation"
: >
: > I think this rather understates the response. The RGCC debate
: > centred on two issues: the political regime in Jakarta, and the Ban
: > on Junior. On the first of these, there never really was anything
: > much to add: the debate, though heated, could have been had equally
: > about sporting links with South Africa, about the Moscow or other
: > Olympics, and lots of other such events. Whatever your personal views,
: > I hope we can at least agree that there *are* two sides to the debate,
: > and that those on the other side are not thereby irredeemably evil.

: Yes. If you (or anyone) considers that my position is that the opposing
: view is 'irredeemably evil' then you've not been reading *my* posts.

Here you and everyone has to be careful, because of the "thread"
phenomenom. What happens is that something is said in a thread, then
someone else responds, and a third person jumps in and covers both posts
at once. It's easy to take this as criticism of what you posted, since
your name appears first in the attribution. It's like a conversation,
really, except the time-span makes the "source" more vague if the debate
isn't followed *very* carefully. This leads to more misunderstanding, more
"I didn't say that", "I didn't say you did", "yes you did, see post # x" and
so forth...

: > TM's stated view can be summarised as "it was Jakarta or nothing"; I

: > don't really see what more he could say that would further anyone's
: > cause. On the second issue, the debate on RGCC *was* uninformed rumour
: > and speculation. I know no more than anyone else what the truth of
: > the situation was; but ICCAJ 19/4 contains two pages of apparently
: > definitive information about the progress of events.

: Why is it 'apparently definitive' ? Because its in print ? Because its a
: 'journal' ?

: Why do factoids wrapped up in the 'right' wrapping paper have to be any
: more correct that 'factoids' wrapped up in the 'wrong' paper ?

Because there is no information to the contrary, in any shape or form. Are
you aware of any other possible site for this event? Any other sponsor that
came forward with $30,000? I haven't seen one single hint that there were
any behind the scenes things going on to lure the event to Jakarta, other
than a university over there said "We'd like to do it, here's the check for
$30,000. We know it's a travel inconvenience, so here's 24 tickets on top
of thatt." It seemed fair, logical, and within reason in light of no other
sites. The only other choice would have been to not have the event, and
that is directly contrary to decisions made at ICCA meetings in the past. It
was mandated that there be a WMCCC and WCCC event on schedule.

: > The Junior team

: > contributes to ICCAJ; if they are unhappy with the Board's version,
: > then I suggest it is up to them to fire away rather than up to you or
: > me to second-guess what deficiencies there might be in that account.

: Indeed true. I've always been concerned about the lack of information from
: Israel.

Me too. I was amazed when my phone rang at near midnight with Tony on the
line from Jakarta asking me to try and contact the Junior guys as they were
not on the internet as they were supposed to be... That was the first I'd
heard about the internet participation, although it didn't really affect me
anyway. I'd have loved to see them participate, as they have a good program
and it would have added more to the event... Maybe as Paul Harvey says,
"one day we'll know the rest of the story..."

: >
: > > amateur/professional issue was dismissed as "we'll carry on as before"

: >
: > This again is unfair. TM's article devotes more than a page
: > to this issue. His final sentence is "Since I cherish constructive
: > input on this topic, I again invite former participants in our computer-
: > chess events to compose their thoughts and come forward with considered
: > opinions on how to sort professionals from amateurs." I guess that
: > means you. Doesn't sound like dismissal or a closed mind to me. I
: > understand that you have a [possibly legitimate] gripe with the past
: > definitions; TM points out some of the problems and grey areas; let
: > us at least try to be forward-looking.

: My proposal always was, and always will be: stop sorting - any sort rule
: can be exposed as stupid, so don't do it.

: My belief is that the principal reason that there is any differentiation is
: to be able to extract $1000 from commercial programmers in entry fees.

And I believe you are correct in that regard. Vendors wanted to enter multiple
machines in the 80's, and were willing to pay. The ICCA probably would have
been foolish to turn the opportunity down. That was in the days of "real
companies" such as Fidelity Electronics (and others of course.) I've already
stated my opinion on this, that the time for the disolution of the oddball
titles is here, we need a WMCCC champion, period. No one needs to shield the
"amateur" entries from the "commercial" entries to foster development. That
is an outdated concept. I continue to bring this up and will continue to do
so. The WCCC has had one winner for years. The ACM started this "micro"
category baloney years ago to encourage micro programs. I think we can agree
that we really don't need any more encouragement, as computer chess is alive
and well and improving at a steady pace. One tournament, one title, simple
idea whose time has come...

: Which is why I am interested in how the financial take from these tourneys
: gets spent.

: They have maintained that they welcome proposals on the sort process. I'm
: interested in *no* sort process.

: So they will be carrying on as normal.

If they don't provide air fare, it will simply degrade back into a commerical
only event as it nearly did in the middle 80's... For a long time there was
this misconception about Cray Blitz, that Cray Research was putting large
sums of money into that project. Fact is, they put in zero. They made
machines available for me on occasion, at no cost, but that was it. I paid
my way to every event I went to, until the last few ACM events started offering
cash prizes to the top programs. It was nice to win money to offset the travel
costs, but it didn't help very many.

A company whose income is based on selling a chess program wouldn't think twice
about spending 2500 bucks to participate in a chess event. That's cheap for
good advertising. I had to think long and strong about it however, and often
drove 1200-1500 miles to attend these things and keep the cost down. I'm glad
the ICCA makes arrangements for the amateur programs because otherwise they
would likely not come, except for reasonably local teams. That would be
unfortunate.

: >
: > > No doubt you'll have read Schaeffer's comments in this thread,

: (Schaeffer
: > > used to do the accounts for ICCA until recently).
: >
: > JS expresses himself rather forcefully. You presumably saw
: > Don Beal's comments, which set out the *current* Treasurer's view of
: > the accounts.
: >
: > > And as someone who either gets ignored (as does Thorsten when he
: > > communicates with them), or receives replies such as "I decline to
: answer
: > > at this stage"; I'm rather inclined to doubt that I'ld be doing much
: more
: > > than wasting my time by sending them anything.
: >
: > Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the way you express yourself.

: Perhaps :)

: > People are entitled to have differing views, and to become upset
: > when those views are attacked in a hostile way which imputes
: > dishonest motives.

: I've been asking questions.

: These questions have revealed that, contrary to statements that ICCA
: officers are not paid and are volunteers, at least one ICCA officer has
: been paid (although it is claimed to be a payment when he is not acting as
: an ICCA officer, but is at an ICCA tournament).

: I am interested in discovering the truth.

I think the truth is known here. David Levy was paid for running the old
ACM events, to be replaced by Mike Valvo when David developed a program and
would have had a conflict of interests. I'm surprised that Jaap was chosen
as a TD, because I'd rather see a Hal Bogner type that understands the
international rules of chess, pairings, and so forth, but I won't second-
guess why he was chosen. He did make some off-the-cuff decisions I would
not have made had I been running some of those events. I'm probably much
more literal in how I interpret rules. And would probably have made even
more people mad, because a clear violation of a rule would have resulted in
the immediate expulsion of that program, period.

: If you think I am implying dishonest motives, well, you're free to think

[Bill Newton]

In article <5cp1p7$f...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt
<hy...@cis.uab.edu> writes: To mclane@prima

>They can't ignore what they don't receive. I've known Tony for a very long
>time, and was never of the opinion he could read minds. Perhaps even if he
>could, you might be exempt... if you know what I mean. :)

Touche!

Regards.

--
Bill Newton

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<5cqc7e$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

And I can tell you that being on the loosing end of a political decision is
no fun. certainly happened to me a few years back.

For technical reasons where I can see the merit of the other side, then ok.
One side has merit, the other side has merit - a decision has to be made.

But political, that really does generate problems. Especially when it is
clearly so.

Fair enough. But I can still state *not*, if I haven't said it, no ?

That wasn't what I was referring to :)

I was just querying the posters term 'apparently definitive' - on the
grounds that the factoids got printed in a journal. Ie. I query whether
'wrapping' the factoids in a journal makes them any more definitive ....

Obviously, as you point out above, there was a case to be made for having
the tourney in Jakarta. Its wasn't black and white. But there's also a case
for arguing against it, no ?

Agreed. It would be nice if everybody got air tickets. Although, if I had
been offered one for Jakarta, I'ld have declined it - no way would I have
traveled in economy on a 20 hour flight. If tickets were in short supply,
then I have no problem with some sort of categorisation giving 'poorer'
participants the benefit first.

I just don't like the entry fee divisiveness for amateur/professional.

And I think the separate categories for the winner(s) are just plain dumb.
My recollection is that the multi-title opportunities were a bribe/sop to
the dedicated machine manufacturors from the 1980's, to justify the $4000
fee they were charged.

>
> A company whose income is based on selling a chess program wouldn't think
twice
> about spending 2500 bucks to participate in a chess event. That's cheap
for
> good advertising. I had to think long and strong about it however, and
often
> drove 1200-1500 miles to attend these things and keep the cost down. I'm
glad
> the ICCA makes arrangements for the amateur programs because otherwise
they
> would likely not come, except for reasonably local teams. That would be
> unfortunate.

Yes, but look at the income of the PC programmers. Its *low*.

Maybe the lucky one make $100,000 in a good year, but they could also make
$20,000 or less. Its all very chancy, dependent apon results, and markets
and and and.

Just how many commercial programmers are there, ten ?
Are there world funds of $1,000,000 in royalties/profit for them in the
chess market ?
I doubt it.
And there are plenty more people drawing on this income pool. Publishing
companies. Advertising/magazines, support staff etc. etc. etc.

Now, to go to Jakarta, you're looking at what, $5000 - $10,000 in total,
give or take.

This is meaningful money. Meaningful in proportion to income. Very
meaningful in proportion to a low income. The $1000 can just tip the scales
to *not* go, no ?

Possibly. But my consideration is that there are still questions open.

And, did we know that Jaap van den Herik was being paid for TD duties ?

I certainly didn't. Marsland said that 'no ICCA offical was being paid, all
are volunteers', - that doesn't seem to imply that the TD, if an ICCA
official, was getting paid, no ?

> David Levy was paid for running the old
> ACM events, to be replaced by Mike Valvo when David developed a program
and
> would have had a conflict of interests. I'm surprised that Jaap was
chosen
> as a TD, because I'd rather see a Hal Bogner type that understands the
> international rules of chess, pairings, and so forth, but I won't second-
> guess why he was chosen. He did make some off-the-cuff decisions I would
> not have made had I been running some of those events. I'm probably much
> more literal in how I interpret rules.

Well, I'ld be much more liberal. Anything to keep the game going would be
my way.

> And would probably have made even
> more people mad, because a clear violation of a rule would have resulted
in
> the immediate expulsion of that program, period.

And the operator to the firing squad ? :)

What is really needed is a *written* set of rules/guidelines.

Then we would *know* what was right and what wasn't.

I was severely disadvantaged once, by someone who dug up some alleged
precedent from 1982. Not knowing any precedents, I wasn't really in a
position to argue. The whole process of disagreement over the rules and
possible bad ruling for a participant can be highly unpleasant. It can
develop into a kind of Stalinist peoples court/kangaroo court with all the
programmers/onlookers gathered round, everybody throwing in his view, old
scores getting settled, maybe even participants looking for tournament
advantage, arguments/discussions taking place in foreign languages.
And then some politics getting thrown in.
In such a case, I think it then becomes the role of the TD to give some
protection to the victim of this process. Its not an easy role, and there
are times when it hasn't been handled well in my experience.

Chris Whittington

[mclane]

>>
>> Who are the members who were ignored by the ICCA officers?

>Me.

>They were informed why I pulled out of the Jakarta tourney (Junior-Israel
>banning), and they chose to characterise it otherwise (apparently I didn't
>want to part with my money, was how they put it).

>They also characterised r.g.c.c. as 'inaccurate rumour' and 'hostile
>speculation'.

THATS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE:
I call this: writing cynical and writing between the lines. Misusing
their publishing-magazine to desinform the readers and the rest about
the facts. But using it for showing their cynical point of view !!

>The only listening done appeared to be with closed ears. Or brain already
>set in concrete.

>I have also received replies like:

>'I get 100's of emails a day, I can't possibly go through this'

>and

>'I decline to answer at this stage'

>Seems like ignoring to me.

>Chris Whittington

>>
>> bruce
>>

[mclane]

>I think this is accurate. There were, and are, people who will attempt to
>throw any sort of mud on the ICCA that they can find. People were making
>all sorts of criticisms and claims, based upon few or no facts.

>bruce

I hope/wish you do not count ME into this group. I have nothing
against LEVY. I have bought the MarkK V and other products of him,
some books and whatever.

[mclane]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

>Which brings us to another point. I haven't heard that any one of you
>guys actually dissented AT them. All of the noise was in here, wasn't
>it? Did anyone actually contact them, and end up after the conversation
>in a state of unresolved disagreement?

WRONG ! I have sent them an email and a carbon-copy of this EMAIL
(to have whittnesses !) to german chess-magazine EUROPA-ROCHADE !
At the time I have sent this, I was a member of the ICCA.

But I am really unimportant.
I mentioned a few cases and I can repeat them.
I would like to have answers maybe from the persons involved.
Why did Van den Herik adjuicated in munich 1993
one day using this rules and another day using this rule ?

These questions are more important than the ICCA oversee my email.
If an organisation payd by members/programmers says:
Mr. Soandso - who is paid by you - is the refferee, I think it is
legal to ask why mr. soandso has taken one time these adjudications
and the other day this adjudications.

>Who are the members who were ignored by the ICCA officers?

>bruce

[mclane]

> how many times do we have to explain it? Chris said they should
>publish a dissenting view. (at least, that is my interpretation of
>what he said.) instead, Jonathan Schaeffer tells Chris to shut up.
>ysee, the topic now is not (just) what ICCA should have done about the
>WMCCC, but how ICCA conducts itself afterward. you must have grasped
>this point earlier, because you were arguing against it. but in your
>zeal to attack ICCA's critics, you seem to have forgotten what we were
>arguing about.

Right !

>>Which brings us to another point. I haven't heard that any one of you
>>guys actually dissented AT them.

> then you haven't been reading carefully.

Right!

>>All of the noise was in here, wasn't it? Did anyone actually
>>contact them, and end up after the conversation in a state of
>>unresolved disagreement?

The way ICCA reacts is the same way Computer-Schach and Spiele reacts
here in germany.
(The german government uses the same strategy - but this is off-topic)
They are not ansewring, misuing their magazine to misinform the people
writing between the lines, they don't publish critice and they use
cynical statements to attack their critics.

[mclane]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Thorsten could be leader of the schizo-insane-vindictive-radicals.

WHAAAAT ?? Wait chris, next time I see you we don't drink hot -tea
together, but I throw the hot-tea over your trousers and say: Oh -
sorry. My mistake !!! :-)

[Ed Schroder]

From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)

Date: 30 Jan 1997 02:41:43 GMT

Bob, are you in a different time zone these days?
I noticed the days of your postings are always one day too early... :)

[ snip ]

: How about some direct complaints from Chris? I'm aware of his

: amateur/ commercial complaint, and after having had it explained
: carefully, I personally agree with the ICCA. Chris told us a
: "snippet" of information about this, namely that he made less than

: 25% of his income from chess. On the surface, that sounds convincing.

: But then you find out that he made 100% of his income from computer
: games. And the story sounds completely different in that light.

I disagree, a rule is a rule.
The ICCA made a mess of this subject (Hiarcs, Nimzo)
Why not simply admit if you make a mistake?
No big deal to me we all make mistakes.

Just for the record I am not anti ICCA. The ICCA has done fantastics jobs
in the past. Organizing all tournaments an incredible time consuming job.
Well done ICCA!

[ snipped the mud on Chris ]

- Ed -

[Rolf Tueschen]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>: No, Bob, we won't loose our last god. Jonathan is ok. We can't see why but he
>: surely had his reasons. Perhaps you know them too. So Bob, please, take my
>: apologies. I will clean all the pig shit at your feet. And I will kiss your
>: toes one after another. The big one and the next a little curved one. And so
>: on.

>Not in this lifetime you won't... :)

>: The sun is shining again.

>: And if they're not dead ...

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

Bbbbob, what you're doin to me ...

From now on one has to know that Jon's dog Phillipo goes to the same doctor as
Tony's Phillipa. And Tony's daughter once dated Freddie (obviously Jon's second
son). One has to know that. Self understood. Therefore Jonathan had the right
to be a bit short worded in attacking Chris. Selfunderstood. Because they drink
both Gatzweiler (not bums mal w e i d e r -- which is another beer from
Cologne). Sorry Bob, that I did miss all these facts indeed. Next time there
wouldn't be needed more than:

Hi Chris.
!! 2 below.

Jonathan

Prof of Maths and Aerospace Roof 74 Canada/USA, on the right side from B99...

(Did you mean that?)

But nevertheless, thanks. I wrote *perhaps you know them too*, and you knew
them, and you opened your hackisack for a short glimpse. Thanks.
Someone has to do the rambler. Well I don't mind.

When you should come to Paderborn for instance, and you're concentrating on
crafty 19-BxRf1!??, suddenly there will be a short tremble under the table.
*There's a killer on the loose ...*. And you're sittin there. Barfooted.
:))

Irongrandman Rolf

[Jonathan Schaeffer]

: But what Bob Hyatt seems to have overlooked is another very important point.
: And that is the fact -- the fact simply as such --- that a very intelligent and
: educated expert as Mr. Schaeffer jumped into this group, gave verdict over CW
: without ANY facts at all, and finally got into a rather mad fight against Don
: Fong. The latter point proved my former judgement very well but I didn't know
: it at the time.

Sigh. Many years ago, Hans Berliner posted an article stating that when
people make judgements, that they should preface their comments with their
qualifications. That way people could judge the quality of what was being
said.

Hans got a lot of unnecessary flack for his remarks. The result is that
Hans rarely contributes to rgcc anymore. In fact, there are a lot of
well-known computer chess people who read rgcc but refuse to post anything
here because of the (now be careful - say it diplomatically, else incur
the wrath of the net) "spirited" responses of a few people (whew!).

So, I follow Han's advice. Although in my original posting I did not cite
any facts, I hope the following will convince you that I have a lot of
information at my disposal:
1986-1992 ICCA treasurer
1992-present ICCA Journal editor
1981-1989 participant in almost all ICCA events
In addition, I am in close contact with Tony Marsland (ICCA Presient; his
office is 10 meters away from mine), David Levy (ICCA vice-president) and
Jaap van den Herik (ICCA Journal Editor).

So, yes, I have a lot of facts at my disposal, but at the time I did not feel
it was necessary to state them. I think Don Beal did an excellent job
reviewing the facts. Strange how I see little discussion of Don's statements.
For some rgcc posters, they prefer to argue over hearsay rather than facts.

As well, I would also like to congratulate Andy Walker on a thoughtful
response to the issues, and Bob Hyatt for his candid remarks.

[Bob, you are one tough fighter to put up with all the unjustified abuse
that is directed your way.]

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
<5crg60$h...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...

Ha !

I think I detect some provocation here, Mr Schaeffer.

And, your recent post said you weren't trying to fight a war .......

>
> As well, I would also like to congratulate Andy Walker on a thoughtful
> response to the issues, and Bob Hyatt for his candid remarks.

Sounds like the unter-offizier rallying the troops. Sorry for the war-like
metaphor.

I think you want war because you are unable to make peace. Because to make
peace would be to make the entire situation clear. And to make the entire
situation clear would cause at least part of your organisation to be
severely embarrassed.

I think certain people have behaved in certain ways in the past because
they knew there was no danger, no comeback. Anyone aggrieved had
essentially no mechanism of redress. All your organisation needed to do was
to ignore the complaint. So it developed a high-handed arrogant style. A
king-like style. A style that just ignored anything it didn't like.

Now, however there's a shift. Organisations have to be more accountable.
Kings and Pashas descend to the same level as the rest of we mortals. You
fight against this, furiously attacking the messengers.

Your organisation has had ample opportunity to resolve its differences
(with me specifically) privately. It has totally refused to do so.

No doubt the struggle will continue. I have no problem with waiting for the
next ICCA elections, as you yourself propose. I think Thorsten Czub would
make a very good president for the ICCA.

However, you should not imagine that I'll stop asking questions where I
think answers are needed. There are various areas where I'm still
concerned, but my intention is to wait a little, let a little heat die
down, before returning. Because it does seem a little too heated at
present, no ?

Chris Whittington

[Jonathan Schaeffer]

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> writes:

>I think I detect some provocation here, Mr Schaeffer.
>And, your recent post said you weren't trying to fight a war .......

>Sounds like the unter-offizier rallying the troops. Sorry for the war-like
>metaphor.

No. I am not trying to provoke you or to fight a war. I beleive in the
facts. I think Don Beal did an admirable job presenting them. And, since
no one seems to question them, I hope that means that the facts are
accepted.

BTW, why does violence prevade many of your posts?

>I think you want war because you are unable to make peace. Because to make
>peace would be to make the entire situation clear. And to make the entire
>situation clear would cause at least part of your organisation to be
>severely embarrassed.

Mr. Whittington, no one talks about war except you. My only objection
is when people start making accusations when they don't have the facts
to back them up.

>I think certain people have behaved in certain ways in the past because
>they knew there was no danger, no comeback. Anyone aggrieved had
>essentially no mechanism of redress. All your organisation needed to do was
>to ignore the complaint. So it developed a high-handed arrogant style. A
>king-like style. A style that just ignored anything it didn't like.

The strange thing is that during my tenure with the ICCA, the only one we
had a problem with was you (rather charitably described by Don Beal). We
did not ignore your complaints - we discussed them and addressed them.
Your problem is that the decision(s) went against you.

>Your organisation has had ample opportunity to resolve its differences
>(with me specifically) privately. It has totally refused to do so.

On the contrary. At least during my tenure (1986-1992), we addressed
all your concerns. You were the one who refused to accept the decisions.

Why do you continue this? Do you want rgcc to judge for themselves as
to the correctness of the ICCA decisions? Do you really want to air your
dirty laundry in public?

>No doubt the struggle will continue. I have no problem with waiting for the
>next ICCA elections, as you yourself propose. I think Thorsten Czub would
>make a very good president for the ICCA.

Perhaps, but I would prefer to hear about his credentials for the job, and
his proposals for advancing the cause of computer chess before I would
decide to vote for him.

[Rolf Tueschen]

jona...@cs.ualberta.ca (Jonathan Schaeffer) wrote:

[me who once wrote:]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>it was necessary to state them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(snip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not without expectations. Because it's so sad I'll try another time.

I think I can understand the feelings of Hans Berliner. But I regret his
consequences and I do find them not motivated.

It's all the MEDIUM. First one had to understand that. Here on the net there's
no place for *authority as such/ without questions*. And most important there's
no *social ladder climate*.
Examples:
If I meet an expert in real life (more so in his institution) I wouldn't dare
to speak to him as if he was a howling hooligan after a soccer match.
Either he's my possible future supporter (doctoral father pp.) or he's sticking
his fingers into his nose --- but I would wait for the next minute when he
would demonstrate his knowledge to me. I mean his expert knowledge.
But IF he continued to talk for half an hour about his results after *popeling*
into his nose -- THEN my admiration slowly would decrease a bit. Even then I
would think twice before leaving him for good.

But if YOU -- giving your professoral title below -- just behave like you did
in your first post to Chris I -- as someone who never heard of your computer
chess merits -- had the right to identify a Prof. who behaved like a berserker
as if he was completely out of his mind. Look, on the net, I hadn't the two
minutes to wait for your real face/image stepping forward. I had to write my
post. Because thid medium is very fast. If I waited two weeks to see you from
another side perhaps I would never have the chance to comment your initial
*action*. And I would simply NOT let you pass with that m,ean action.

Back to Hans Berliner. His error was of the following sort:
Because Hans is a well known computer chess expert Hans had the right to write
on some communication rules. And further people had to be thankful that Hans
wrote to them.
Even if he knew that (I'm sure he did) it was not fun to read some *lower
spirited* people making comments on his post. So he retired. I wouldn't
complain or criticise because everyone has another private frustration
tolerance.

Bob once wrote a good judgement. *You can't always win*. So don't take things
too serious. That's always a good remedy.
And look at him. Without boasting/writing down titles Bob IS a factual
expert/authority here on the net. But take a closer look: The group doesn't
drink each and every word from his letters without critics. But everyone who
understands a little bit of our topic knows that aside all minor side
excursions Bob really is an expert AND that he always tried to help people.

This medium simply requires more ironical weapons. But look at good rhetorical
speakers. They all use selfironical remarks as tool.

It's a bad reality that without this you could be a very good expert but you
aren't prepared to play the hero here on the net. Because you would be too
vulnerable. But all this is not new at all. Look into politics. First these
actors know how to forget some irritating news they heard on the TV/radio about
themselves.

Finally, I would expect that an average professor would have learnt over the
years how to deal with critics. What you wrote after some days of thinking in
your latest post is astonishing. Look, a newbie could simply say *zut alors,
merde* and every reader would quickly pass to the next more interesting post.
But if you as signatured professor and more so as longtime expert (what *I*
didn't know) simply say, well, I didn't want to give facts. I wanted to say to
Chris *shut up* or be more positive you couldn't seriously expect big
applause, no?

You are right Don Beale wrote a lot of intereting stuff. But what did disturb
me at the same time was his naivety about communicating here on the net.
In a political party you could write secrete letters *let us all join in
supporting our big leader ...* but here in public it's no good to activate
those who read silent in the background. The net gives the possibility to all
to write. Nobody needs to be activated. You know, it's so mean to shout for the
silent *majority*. The net is by no means a medium where the majorizty could
kill the minority. Here everyone has the same right to post even if he's the
only man to write for a certain position.

What Don Beale is insinuating is the same what others wrote some weeks ago
suggesting some *disturbing writers* should leave this group, at least there
should be some killer function for the sensible users to protect their eyes
from disgustful posts/posters. Very interesting that university members joined
this verbal amoking. No, they were the first to shout!

In respect of the unwritten rules of our net I close with a good reflection by
that man who were attacked by you, Jonathan. Think about that. And please come
back with a comment. And if you contact dear Hans Berliner, please tell him
that there would be a great joy to read something from him in this group!

Here is what Chris wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think certain people have behaved in certain ways in the past because
they knew there was no danger, no comeback. Anyone aggrieved had
essentially no mechanism of redress. All your organisation needed to do was
to ignore the complaint. So it developed a high-handed arrogant style. A
king-like style. A style that just ignored anything it didn't like.

Now, however there's a shift. Organisations have to be more accountable.

Kings and Pashas descend to the same level as the rest of we mortals. You
fight against this, furiously attacking the messengers.

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

Yes, that's what I meant with feudalistic behaviour.

Rolf Tueschen (IGM :))

[Dave Gomboc]

In article <01bc0ed8$7010b840$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I was severely disadvantaged once, by someone who dug up some alleged
>precedent from 1982. Not knowing any precedents, I wasn't really in a
>position to argue. The whole process of disagreement over the rules and
>possible bad ruling for a participant can be highly unpleasant. It can
>develop into a kind of Stalinist peoples court/kangaroo court with all the
>programmers/onlookers gathered round, everybody throwing in his view, old
>scores getting settled, maybe even participants looking for tournament
>advantage, arguments/discussions taking place in foreign languages.
>And then some politics getting thrown in.
>In such a case, I think it then becomes the role of the TD to give some
>protection to the victim of this process. Its not an easy role, and there
>are times when it hasn't been handled well in my experience.
>
>Chris Whittington

I for one would be interested in your take on exactly what happened at
this previous tournament. My impression is that you think you got
shafted, but I have no idea as to what occured at the tournament.

>> : I agree, flamage should be binned.
>>
>> : But I have too many points of difference with the ICCA, and there is
>too
>> : much personal animosity (I claim from *their* direction towards me) for
>me
>> : to get involved in writing material for their journal.
>>
>> : Chris Whittington
>>

Why not give it a try? They might accept your article and print it.

Dave Gomboc

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
<85461421...@gln01-20.dial.xs4all.nl>...

> From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
>
> Date: 30 Jan 1997 02:41:43 GMT
>
> Bob, are you in a different time zone these days?
> I noticed the days of your postings are always one day too early... :)
>
> [ snip ]
>
> : How about some direct complaints from Chris? I'm aware of his
> : amateur/ commercial complaint, and after having had it explained
> : carefully, I personally agree with the ICCA. Chris told us a
> : "snippet" of information about this, namely that he made less than
> : 25% of his income from chess.

Bob, I have to say, I resent your 'snippet' comment.

The ICCA rule stated: less than 25% of income, supported by evidence from a
qualified accountant.

So I got accounts to work out my chess income. 13.1% I recollect.

That's all the information that was required. Not *how* much in total, nor
*what* the rest was. Just the percentage.

It wasn't a snippet, it was the information required by the rule.

> On the surface, that sounds convincing.
> : But then you find out that he made 100% of his income from computer
> : games.

You haven't found anything of the sort. The 100% figure is yours, or the
ICCA's or somebody's. I don't think I've stated the figure, and presumably
I should know.
It's not 100% from games. But the rule says nothing about other income.

It really does seem to me that if you make a rule you should stick to it.
If someone manages to 'get round' it - then change it, but change it for
*next time*. Otherwise there are *no* rules - nothing is fixed - nobody
knows where they stand - everything gets made up as we go along.

Plus, you know perfectly well that I never expected the ICCA to declare me
an amateur.

My objective was to show:

1. Any rule and specifically this 25% rule could have a coach and horses
driven through it.

2. and to confirm a little prejudice of mine that no matter what, I wasn't
going to get a decision in my favour. It amused me that to turn down the
application they would have to break their own rule. A rule is a rule,
except in my case.

3. To bring the issue into the open, so that the simmering discontent over
amateur/professional status amongst many persons would get an airing.

So the application was political. Do I need to keep repeating that ?

> And the story sounds completely different in that light.
>
> I disagree, a rule is a rule.
> The ICCA made a mess of this subject (Hiarcs, Nimzo)
> Why not simply admit if you make a mistake?
> No big deal to me we all make mistakes.
>
> Just for the record I am not anti ICCA. The ICCA has done fantastics jobs
> in the past. Organizing all tournaments an incredible time consuming job.
> Well done ICCA!

Well, speaking of percentages, I'm not 100% against them either :)

Obviously there is a important place for an ICCA. With some changes. With
real democratic elections from *all* members. With fully disclosed accounts
to any member who requests them.
For any democratic, accountable, non-commercial organisation this would be
completely normal.

Whether this comes about, we'll see. My guess is that they'll probably find
some excuse to expel me from the organisation, rather than engage in
dialog.

Personally speaking, I find it quite surprising that they have allowed the
situation to become so personal and heated as the last week has shown. I
know I've played my part, but the differences between myself and the ICCA
could very easily have been solved on several occasions in the past, but
for their refusal to discuss, let alone resolve, in private, either by way
of solicitors or by private email, any concrete issues.

And there are concrete issues - and these issues have merit.

And BTW, to respond to a post of Bruce's. Wanting to see the accounts does
*not* imply anybody is stealing. Asking questions about whether or not a TD
who is also an ICCA volunteer gets paid, is not accusing anyone of
stealing. Asking about Honorarium payments does not imply anyone is
stealing.

Disagreeing over Jakarta does not imply anybody is corrupt.

Sorry if some people find that difficult.

Chris Whittington

[Robert Hyatt]

Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

: Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
: <85461421...@gln01-20.dial.xs4all.nl>...
: > From: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
: >
: > Date: 30 Jan 1997 02:41:43 GMT
: >
: > Bob, are you in a different time zone these days?
: > I noticed the days of your postings are always one day too early... :)
: >
: > [ snip ]
: >
: > : How about some direct complaints from Chris? I'm aware of his
: > : amateur/ commercial complaint, and after having had it explained
: > : carefully, I personally agree with the ICCA. Chris told us a
: > : "snippet" of information about this, namely that he made less than
: > : 25% of his income from chess.

: Bob, I have to say, I resent your 'snippet' comment.

: The ICCA rule stated: less than 25% of income, supported by evidence from a
: qualified accountant.

: So I got accounts to work out my chess income. 13.1% I recollect.

: That's all the information that was required. Not *how* much in total, nor
: *what* the rest was. Just the percentage.

: It wasn't a snippet, it was the information required by the rule.

Sorry. poor choice of terms. However, it is still one of these "but
what's the rest of the story?" type things. It seems to me that if you
make a living writing games, you are a professional, period. The ICCA
rule is stupid in that regard, and we both agree. Where 25% came from is
anybody's idea, but I certainly don't see any logical reasoning behind
it. You sell a chess program *period* and you are a pro, you don't, you
aren't. What's so difficult about that? What's with the 25% rule? Sounds
totally arbitrary to me...

: > On the surface, that sounds convincing.

: > : But then you find out that he made 100% of his income from computer
: > : games.

: You haven't found anything of the sort. The 100% figure is yours, or the
: ICCA's or somebody's. I don't think I've stated the figure, and presumably
: I should know.
: It's not 100% from games. But the rule says nothing about other income.

: It really does seem to me that if you make a rule you should stick to it.
: If someone manages to 'get round' it - then change it, but change it for
: *next time*. Otherwise there are *no* rules - nothing is fixed - nobody
: knows where they stand - everything gets made up as we go along.

I agree. As I said, I can understand your not being an amateur. I don't have
a clue about the origin to that rule, it makes no sense to me. How about
a person has $1.00 total income, so a quarter (25 cents would do the trick)
while another makes a million bucks, with only $200,000 in chess sales. He's
an amateur. If that's logic... hmmm...

: Plus, you know perfectly well that I never expected the ICCA to declare me
: an amateur.

: Chris Whittington

: >
: >
: >

[brucemo]

mclane wrote:

> Right ! Help cuba and do the next championship there. I want to meet
> official politicians and want to get an autogramm from Fidel as long
> as he lives. I am sure he wants to play himself against
> chess-programs.

If they hold it there, oh well. I'd try to go, but I'm not sure
Americans can go there that easily.

bruce

[mclane]

hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Exactly who was affected by the Jakarta tournament? Only the programmers. Who
>else visited, or would have visited, who was affected? It's a computer chess
>*programmer* event, period. It's not done as a spectacular event, it's dont
>to get chess programmers together, have a competition, share ideas if that is
>still possible, and promote interest by others. There's no big audience,
>there's no paid admission, this isn't hard to figure out IMHO..

If you post something in the internet, you cannot really say that
there is NO BIG AUDIENCE .

>: If it is different - please do the next championship in cuba.

>THe ICCA is really a powerful organization to be able to stabilize Indonesia. I
>guess it has far more power exerts more influence on world politics than I ever
>imagined. hmmm...

Right ! Help cuba and do the next championship there. I want to meet

official politicians and want to get an autogramm from Fidel as long
as he lives. I am sure he wants to play himself against
chess-programs.

Maybe you could send the communists in cuba the latest source-code
that they can participate 3 programs from crafty-clons:

I would persuafe one
crafty-Castro

one crafty-Che

and one crafty-Capablanca !!

>: You have to be a women , or better: you have to be raped to find out
>: that raping is not nice - bob says ! What a pity: i am only a talker.
>: I think: raping females is bad. But - what a pita again: I am male!!
>: Only female can TALK or value about this crime.
>: I guess Bob is female.

>Strange twisted mind you have there. I'd suggest counseling. I didn't
>mention rape, and your comment goes beyond ignorance. Once again simply
>trying to pick words to generate outrage. Doesn't wash with me...

What ? My point was that I don't have to be a programmer to find out
that making a championship in Jakarta is no good idea.

The above images should only show you how STRANGE your agumentation
was. But maybe you cannot understand this. It needs to tranfer data
from a to b in brain !

>: Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay
>: and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
>: And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
>: want to let the world destroy by politicians.

>How about you stop putting words into my mouth? It does tend to wear
>thin and it makes you look like an idiot. My initial comment was that the
>WMCCC event was *not* a bad event. The participants had a good time. The
>competition was exciting. The event went off as planned. A very few didn't
>show up. End of story. If the participants weren't bent out of shape, why
>should anyone listen to *you*??

I think you have problems to understand my images. Are you
right-handed bob ? I mean - are you hip or square ?!

>: And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!
>: They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

>: Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
>: germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
>: intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

>I begin to see the great urgency to develop the retroactive abortion pill
>in Europe too.

This is a nice sentence. I would like you to comment it further. What
do you mean with this sentence ? I would like to get a precise answer
from you, also my lawyer would like to get a precise answer from you
- in this case !

>: > i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.
>: > i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
>: >charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
>: >what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
>: >computer chess.

>: Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

>What does this mean? I don't see anything immoral and neither do a lot of
>other folks. Interesting that the ones screaming the loudest were not among
>the participants *or* "possible participants". Ergo, if you don't like the
>event, that is your business. From what I've heard from those there, it was
>a lot of fun.

You are right. That's all we need. Fun and money. The rest can die
until... :-)

>: >ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they
>: >listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
>: >public flak until they start listening.

>: Me too.

>Only if they (a) get flak from many, rather than a few prattling on and on
>about old news; (b) get flak directly, rather than by inuendo, implication,
>and outright lies; and (c) are asked to correct specific problems first-hand.
>So far, they haven't gotten anything formal, although you'd think they had from
>the noise here. This is a public forum, not an ICCA suggestion box. I don't
>expect them to take *any* action based on the stuff posted here, except to
>possibly puke...

No - they have nothing formal ! They got my email. An email is not
formal because ICCA uses only PAPER-SHEETS ?? But why do they publish
on internet then ?!

What is formal ?!

>:)

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: >Exactly who was affected by the Jakarta tournament? Only the programmers. Who
: >else visited, or would have visited, who was affected? It's a computer chess
: >*programmer* event, period. It's not done as a spectacular event, it's dont
: >to get chess programmers together, have a competition, share ideas if that is
: >still possible, and promote interest by others. There's no big audience,
: >there's no paid admission, this isn't hard to figure out IMHO..

: If you post something in the internet, you cannot really say that
: there is NO BIG AUDIENCE .

Please read carefully. *THE JAKARTA EVENT HAD NO BIG AUDIENCE*... that
should have been pretty clear.. the primary people affected by that
tournament were the people that participated...

: >: If it is different - please do the next championship in cuba.

: >THe ICCA is really a powerful organization to be able to stabilize Indonesia. I
: >guess it has far more power exerts more influence on world politics than I ever
: >imagined. hmmm...

: Right ! Help cuba and do the next championship there. I want to meet
: official politicians and want to get an autogramm from Fidel as long
: as he lives. I am sure he wants to play himself against
: chess-programs.

: Maybe you could send the communists in cuba the latest source-code
: that they can participate 3 programs from crafty-clons:

: I would persuafe one
: crafty-Castro

: one crafty-Che

: and one crafty-Capablanca !!

There's hyperbole, and there's hyperbole, and then there's your
HYPERBOLE.

: >: You have to be a women , or better: you have to be raped to find out

: >: that raping is not nice - bob says ! What a pity: i am only a talker.
: >: I think: raping females is bad. But - what a pita again: I am male!!
: >: Only female can TALK or value about this crime.
: >: I guess Bob is female.

: >Strange twisted mind you have there. I'd suggest counseling. I didn't
: >mention rape, and your comment goes beyond ignorance. Once again simply
: >trying to pick words to generate outrage. Doesn't wash with me...

: What ? My point was that I don't have to be a programmer to find out
: that making a championship in Jakarta is no good idea.

Nah, your point was stupid. Nobody was talking about rape, or killing
or anything else. We were talking about playing a computer chess tournament.
That's one hell of a long way from being ambivalent about rape. It's such
a giant leap, it's stupid to mention it.

: The above images should only show you how STRANGE your agumentation

: was. But maybe you cannot understand this. It needs to tranfer data
: from a to b in brain !

You need a brain. Don't try to paint me with a brush filled by your
morals and ideas. I don't condone rape. I don't condone murder. I don't
condone lots of things. I do enjoy chess. I wrote a program that participated
in Jakarta. This was unrelated to your ranting about criminal behavior against
women. Put it in a sack, it's worthless.

: >: Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay

: >: and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
: >: And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
: >: want to let the world destroy by politicians.

And just where do you get off putting words into my mouth. Why don't you
speak for yourself, and I'll do the same. I know how to vote. If something
happens politically that I don't like I speak out, and I use my vote to try
and change it.

: >How about you stop putting words into my mouth? It does tend to wear

: >thin and it makes you look like an idiot. My initial comment was that the
: >WMCCC event was *not* a bad event. The participants had a good time. The
: >competition was exciting. The event went off as planned. A very few didn't
: >show up. End of story. If the participants weren't bent out of shape, why
: >should anyone listen to *you*??

: I think you have problems to understand my images. Are you
: right-handed bob ? I mean - are you hip or square ?!

: >: And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!
: >: They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

: >: Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
: >: germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
: >: intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

: >I begin to see the great urgency to develop the retroactive abortion pill
: >in Europe too.

: This is a nice sentence. I would like you to comment it further. What
: do you mean with this sentence ? I would like to get a precise answer
: from you, also my lawyer would like to get a precise answer from you
: - in this case !

I mean, that if your parents could purchase a retro-active abortion pill, they'd
likely be at the local drugstore buying one. You must really make them proud.
Every post has to have rape, murder and other crap included. This *is* computer
chess we are talking about you know??

: >: > i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.

: >: > i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
: >: >charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
: >: >what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
: >: >computer chess.

: >: Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

: >What does this mean? I don't see anything immoral and neither do a lot of
: >other folks. Interesting that the ones screaming the loudest were not among
: >the participants *or* "possible participants". Ergo, if you don't like the
: >event, that is your business. From what I've heard from those there, it was
: >a lot of fun.

: You are right. That's all we need. Fun and money. The rest can die
: until... :-)

Again, the "die" word. You really do need help. If I had skipped Jakarta, not
one person would be alive today that isn't. Not one person is dead today that
wouldn't be had I not gone. It simply didn't affect anything. To keep imagining
that it did is unhealthy reasoning...

: >: >ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they

: >: >listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
: >: >public flak until they start listening.

: >: Me too.

: >Only if they (a) get flak from many, rather than a few prattling on and on
: >about old news; (b) get flak directly, rather than by inuendo, implication,
: >and outright lies; and (c) are asked to correct specific problems first-hand.
: >So far, they haven't gotten anything formal, although you'd think they had from
: >the noise here. This is a public forum, not an ICCA suggestion box. I don't
: >expect them to take *any* action based on the stuff posted here, except to
: >possibly puke...

: No - they have nothing formal ! They got my email. An email is not
: formal because ICCA uses only PAPER-SHEETS ?? But why do they publish
: on internet then ?!

: What is formal ?!

: >:)

I have a vague idea (now) why they didn't respond to you. It appears to be a
futile gesture... either you really don't understand or you don't want to
understand or whatever...

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Robert Hyatt wrote:
> Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:

[Chris's response to my article has not yet reached here, so
I'm responding "through" Robert -- ANW]

> : And surely you accept that the journal (in totality) has been used as an
> : attack platform ?
> : Botwinnik ?

Indeed. But that was not editorial, nor an ICCA "position";
it was an academic paper by Hans Berliner, duly refereed and accepted
for publication. Hans is even more forthright than JonS! I personally
have mixed feelings about that paper; but that's a separate issue.

[Of the ICCA Board's account of the events surrounding Junior:]

> : Why is it 'apparently definitive' ? Because its in print ? Because its a
> : 'journal' ?

No; because it's a considered report by some of the very few
people who actually know what happened. Not an instant "r.g.c.c"
response, not "I hear so-and-so ...", not "I think so-and-so". A
handful of other people may be able to dot a few i's and cross a few
t's, but basically the only people who could possibly rebut this
account are the Junior team. If they are happy with the Board's
version, then it *is* definitive; if not, then we will no doubt hear
soon enough. By contrast, nearly all that we heard on "r.g.c.c" was,
to coin a phrase, mere rumour and speculation.

> : But I have too many points of difference with the ICCA, and there is too
> : much personal animosity (I claim from *their* direction towards me) for me
> : to get involved in writing material for their journal.

Fine; but then you have absolutely no right to complain that
they don't publish views that correspond with yours. You don't have
to agree with someone to write to them; you don't have to support
their editorial line -- it's not a "house journal"; you wouldn't be
writing for *them* but for *us*, the readers; but it's your decision.
And, regardless of your decision re the issues being discussed here,
I would still urge you to write *something* for formal publication
about CSTal [whether to ICCAJ or somewhere else].

[mclane]

brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

>mclane wrote:

>> Right ! Help cuba and do the next championship there. I want to meet
>> official politicians and want to get an autogramm from Fidel as long
>> as he lives. I am sure he wants to play himself against
>> chess-programs.

>If they hold it there, oh well. I'd try to go, but I'm not sure

>Americans can go there that easily.

>bruce

Of course the best things in life are forbidden to americans !

Brilliant !!

[mclane]

hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>: I would persuafe one
>: crafty-Castro

>: one crafty-Che

>: and one crafty-Capablanca !!

>There's hyperbole, and there's hyperbole, and then there's your
>HYPERBOLE.

What the hell is HYPERBOLE ? Does it taste as good as Feuerzangenbowle
?

Or isn't it something to drink and get drunken ?!

>You need a brain.

I have more than ONE ! You have only 1 ??

> Don't try to paint me with a brush filled by your
>morals and ideas. I don't condone rape. I don't condone murder. I don't
>condone lots of things. I do enjoy chess.

You have not understand the words.

I have not said that you condone murder. I said that your
argumentation was THIS way.

>I wrote a program that participated
>in Jakarta. This was unrelated to your ranting about criminal behavior against
>women. Put it in a sack, it's worthless.

Ok.

>: >: Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay
>: >: and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
>: >: And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
>: >: want to let the world destroy by politicians.

>And just where do you get off putting words into my mouth. Why don't you
>speak for yourself, and I'll do the same. I know how to vote. If something
>happens politically that I don't like I speak out, and I use my vote to try
>and change it.

Haha ! Very impressive. You vote for whatever and politicians do 4
years whatever they want ! Very democratically !!
Thats not democracy, that's fatalism. You could go into church and
pray instead of VOTING. It has the same effect !

>: >How about you stop putting words into my mouth? It does tend to wear
>: >thin and it makes you look like an idiot. My initial comment was that the
>: >WMCCC event was *not* a bad event. The participants had a good time. The
>: >competition was exciting. The event went off as planned. A very few didn't
>: >show up. End of story. If the participants weren't bent out of shape, why
>: >should anyone listen to *you*??

>: I think you have problems to understand my images. Are you
>: right-handed bob ? I mean - are you hip or square ?!

>: >: And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!
>: >: They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

>: >: Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
>: >: germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
>: >: intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

>: >I begin to see the great urgency to develop the retroactive abortion pill
>: >in Europe too.

>: This is a nice sentence. I would like you to comment it further. What
>: do you mean with this sentence ? I would like to get a precise answer
>: from you, also my lawyer would like to get a precise answer from you
>: - in this case !

>I mean, that if your parents could purchase a retro-active abortion pill, they'd
>likely be at the local drugstore buying one. You must really make them proud.
>Every post has to have rape, murder and other crap included. This *is* computer
>chess we are talking about you know??

I do lots of computerchess, But I am living too. And fatalism may be
YOUR way , and you call it democracy, but it is not my way.

I looks as if United States have not many philosophers. But they have
McDonalds. You have really a language problem. We are not talking
about computerchess here at all, we are talking about the point IF THE
ICCA DOES THE JOB GOOD OR BAD !
Maybe you should take a look on the subject.
When my parents should by a retro-active abortion pill, maybe your
mother should tell your father the turth and tell him who was really
your father !

>: >: > i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.
>: >: > i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
>: >: >charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
>: >: >what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
>: >: >computer chess.

>: >: Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

>: >What does this mean? I don't see anything immoral and neither do a lot of
>: >other folks. Interesting that the ones screaming the loudest were not among
>: >the participants *or* "possible participants". Ergo, if you don't like the
>: >event, that is your business. From what I've heard from those there, it was
>: >a lot of fun.

>: You are right. That's all we need. Fun and money. The rest can die
>: until... :-)

>Again, the "die" word. You really do need help. If I had skipped Jakarta, not
>one person would be alive today that isn't. Not one person is dead today that
>wouldn't be had I not gone. It simply didn't affect anything. To keep imagining
>that it did is unhealthy reasoning...

If you would have skipped jakarta, you could not have been
instrumented by them.
If I do not business with pimps, I am not the same pimp they are !
If you think making business with pimps is not changing anything to
your reputation ot helping the world, you are very naive.
It looks for me you have no other choice to do computerchess because
the rest of your brain is not able to differenciate or speak any other
words than naive stuff.

>: >: >ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they
>: >: >listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
>: >: >public flak until they start listening.

>: >: Me too.

>: >Only if they (a) get flak from many, rather than a few prattling on and on
>: >about old news; (b) get flak directly, rather than by inuendo, implication,
>: >and outright lies; and (c) are asked to correct specific problems first-hand.
>: >So far, they haven't gotten anything formal, although you'd think they had from
>: >the noise here. This is a public forum, not an ICCA suggestion box. I don't
>: >expect them to take *any* action based on the stuff posted here, except to
>: >possibly puke...

>: No - they have nothing formal ! They got my email. An email is not
>: formal because ICCA uses only PAPER-SHEETS ?? But why do they publish
>: on internet then ?!

>: What is formal ?!

>: >:)

>I have a vague idea (now) why they didn't respond to you. It appears to be a
>futile gesture... either you really don't understand or you don't want to
>understand or whatever...

I can give this back to you. Please never stop computerchess. It looks
this is the only thing you could do, in your position.

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Dr A. N. Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote in article

<32F712...@maths.nott.ac.uk>...

> Robert Hyatt wrote:
> > Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> [Chris's response to my article has not yet reached here, so
> I'm responding "through" Robert -- ANW]
>

> > : And surely you accept that the journal (in totality) has been used as
an
> > : attack platform ?
> > : Botwinnik ?
>

> Indeed. But that was not editorial, nor an ICCA "position";
> it was an academic paper by Hans Berliner, duly refereed and accepted
> for publication.

Hmmm.
I accept that there is 'editorial' at the front. But what I mean by
editorial is the totality of the magazine. There are other examples of
direct personal attack in the ICCA journals. And it's with this evidence
that I'ld say it has been used as an attack platform. I'll be developing
this further in another nearby thread.

One example I can give you now. You remember the case when a competitor was
alleged to have taken ROMs from a Mephisto program, built new pcb's and
support around them, and entered the device in a tourney ... ?

There was an article published, naming him, expelling him from tourneys for
five years and so on.

You may well think the action taken was reasonable under the circumstances,
but the article was also supposed to be a public humiliation, no ? I'ld
call that an attack platform used by those in control of the media against
someone without such power.

Please note, I'm *not* referring to the rights and wrongs of the incident
itself - but merely the use to which controlled print media can, and has
been put.

> Hans is even more forthright than JonS! I personally
> have mixed feelings about that paper; but that's a separate issue.
>
> [Of the ICCA Board's account of the events surrounding Junior:]

> > : Why is it 'apparently definitive' ? Because its in print ? Because
its a
> > : 'journal' ?
>

> No; because it's a considered report by some of the very few
> people who actually know what happened. Not an instant "r.g.c.c"
> response, not "I hear so-and-so ...", not "I think so-and-so". A
> handful of other people may be able to dot a few i's and cross a few
> t's, but basically the only people who could possibly rebut this
> account are the Junior team.

Agreed.

However there is often more to ICCA statements than meets the eye.
In my case, they alleged that my withdrawal from the Jakarta tourney was on
grounds other than those I had stated. They stated an inaccurate, biased
view, designed to attack my position and validate theirs. They've had ample
opportunity to retract/apologise, but have failed to do so.

So, you'll forgive me for viewing 'official' ICCA statements with less
respect and/or belief than yourself ?

I guess I can be slightly thankful to them, because, in so doing, they
have publicly exposed the nature of their attitude towards me. Somewhat
uncharitable, I'ld call it.

> If they are happy with the Board's
> version, then it *is* definitive; if not, then we will no doubt hear
> soon enough.

Not necessarily. My guess is that they are just not very communicative.
Full stop.

> By contrast, nearly all that we heard on "r.g.c.c" was,
> to coin a phrase, mere rumour and speculation.

And belief and opinion and fact and and and.

Of course rgcc is a fast channel, and we need to be aware of the
implications of that.

But ICCA journal is a slow channel, politically controlled by a particular
interest group/faction within the computer chess world. Be aware of the
implications of that.

Swings and roundabouts.

>
> > : But I have too many points of difference with the ICCA, and there is
too
> > : much personal animosity (I claim from *their* direction towards me)
for me
> > : to get involved in writing material for their journal.
>

> Fine; but then you have absolutely no right to complain that
> they don't publish views that correspond with yours.

rights ?

responsibilities ?

no rights ?

Sorry, can't agree with you. I can say what I think, and will continue to
do so.

Anyone is free to disagree.

But this wasn't the point you made. The point you made wasn't about the
previous point I made either :)
My point was that many details/factoids were omitted from the journal
reports.
The withdrawal of CSTal and Arthur. The opposition from other programmers.
and and and. All in all you wouldn't really have thought there was any
dissent to Jakarta at all from reading the journal.
So I wasn't complaining about any lack of *my* view, simply that the
picture was partial, and did not reflect my subjective version of reality.
It was instead, their subjective version of reality.

By the addition of the subjectives shall ye know it.

> You don't have
> to agree with someone to write to them;

Look, I've written to them privately on many occasions and got precisely
nowhere.

Their last reply stated: "I decline to answer at this stage". Its in black
and white. if you'ld like to travel from Nottingham to Oxford I can show it
you. No problem. A black and white 'fact'.

> you don't have to support
> their editorial line -- it's not a "house journal"; you wouldn't be
> writing for *them* but for *us*, the readers; but it's your decision.

Yes. There are other channels. I prefer those.

Chris Whittington

> And, regardless of your decision re the issues being discussed here,
> I would still urge you to write *something* for formal publication
> about CSTal [whether to ICCAJ or somewhere else].
>

[brucemo]

mclane wrote:
>
> brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:

> >If they hold it there, oh well. I'd try to go, but I'm not sure
> >Americans can go there that easily.
>
> >bruce
>
> Of course the best things in life are forbidden to americans !
>
> Brilliant !!

Maybe I'll go to Florida and try to raft to Cuba. Apparently it's a
pleasant trip, since so many Cubans go the other direction.

bruce

[Chris Whittington]

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article

<5ctqmg$v...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...

> "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >I think I detect some provocation here, Mr Schaeffer.
> >And, your recent post said you weren't trying to fight a war .......
> >Sounds like the unter-offizier rallying the troops. Sorry for the
war-like
> >metaphor.
>
> No. I am not trying to provoke you or to fight a war.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that I don't believe you.

> I beleive in the
> facts.

No, you believe in your own strongly held opinions.

Not the same thing at all.

> I think Don Beal did an admirable job presenting them. And, since
> no one seems to question them, I hope that means that the facts are
> accepted.

No, it doesn't.

There's a bigger picture.

It will take time.

>
> BTW, why does violence prevade many of your posts?

a) it doesn't

b) you're trying a smear

c) when did you stop beating your wife ?

d) just in case, because mud always has a habit of sticking, the last
dust-up I was involved in was in 1968, American Embassy, Grosvenor Square,
London: anti-Vietnam war protest. Riotous Assembly they called it. But I'm
quite proud of that really, even if it was 29 years ago.

>
> >I think you want war because you are unable to make peace. Because to
make
> >peace would be to make the entire situation clear. And to make the
entire
> >situation clear would cause at least part of your organisation to be
> >severely embarrassed.
>
> Mr. Whittington, no one talks about war except you. My only objection
> is when people start making accusations when they don't have the facts
> to back them up.

Now, Mr Schaeffer; what you really meant to say, and have people read and
interpret was that "ChrisW had made accusation without facts to back them
up", isn't it ?

But you can't actually say that, because I haven't.

I've asked questions. You haven't liked the questions. Why not ?

Something didn't add up in my mind.

I saw these statements that ICCA officers were volunteers and didn't get
paid.

I saw these statements were being used for political and other benefit.

But too much stuff didn't make sense to me.

So I asked. I didn't accuse. I asked. And finally we got the statement in
response that ICCA officers were paid sometimes. Fine, another piece of the
jigsaw.

Now this doesn't mean I accused you or anybody else of anything.
I'm sure it would be perfectly legal for you to pay yourselves. After all,
you run the show and do some work.

I was interested in the apparent difference between the public statement
and reality.

Obviously you resent my interest. Sorry, not much I can do about that.
Seems to be your problem.

But I'm still interested.

>
> >I think certain people have behaved in certain ways in the past because
> >they knew there was no danger, no comeback. Anyone aggrieved had
> >essentially no mechanism of redress. All your organisation needed to do
was
> >to ignore the complaint. So it developed a high-handed arrogant style. A
> >king-like style. A style that just ignored anything it didn't like.
>

> The strange thing is that during my tenure with the ICCA, the only one we
> had a problem with was you (rather charitably described by Don Beal). We
> did not ignore your complaints - we discussed them and addressed them.
> Your problem is that the decision(s) went against you.
>
> >Your organisation has had ample opportunity to resolve its differences
> >(with me specifically) privately. It has totally refused to do so.
>
> On the contrary. At least during my tenure (1986-1992), we addressed
> all your concerns. You were the one who refused to accept the
decisions.

Now I think this is not true.

I've been to two ICCA events only:

1991 Lyon WMCCC
1995 Paderborn WMCCC

At Lyon I don't recollect sending you any concerns at all.

At Paderborn my main concern remains un-addressed.

I think you have no reason to be unhappy with my existence at either of
these tourneys do you ? I just operated a computer at one, and flew in for
a couple of days at the other.

Furthermore I am unaware of any decisions you may or may not have made.

Tricky not to accept what one doesn't know about, eh ?

Is there anything you haven't told me or my lawyers by any chance ?

>
> Why do you continue this? Do you want rgcc to judge for themselves as
> to the correctness of the ICCA decisions? Do you really want to air your
> dirty laundry in public?

Whose laundry ?

We'll see who needs the industrial strength cleaning solution.

Regards,

Chris Whittington

[Robert Hyatt]

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: >: I would persuafe one
: >: crafty-Castro

: >: one crafty-Che

: >: and one crafty-Capablanca !!

: >There's hyperbole, and there's hyperbole, and then there's your
: >HYPERBOLE.

: What the hell is HYPERBOLE ? Does it taste as good as Feuerzangenbowle
: ?

: Or isn't it something to drink and get drunken ?!

: >You need a brain.

: I have more than ONE ! You have only 1 ??

: > Don't try to paint me with a brush filled by your
: >morals and ideas. I don't condone rape. I don't condone murder. I don't
: >condone lots of things. I do enjoy chess.

: You have not understand the words.

: I have not said that you condone murder. I said that your
: argumentation was THIS way.

Then you need to (a) find a better way to express yourself and (c) make sure
your meaning is clear when you do. You ranted and raved about my being not
interested in whether women were raped or not. That has not one damn thing to
do with the topic at hand. If your approach to debate is to use inflammatory
clap-trap, rather than reasoned arguments, leave me out. I'm not debating
women's rights with you, nor political misconduct. I'll talk computer chess
all day, but that is *it*...

: >I wrote a program that participated

: >in Jakarta. This was unrelated to your ranting about criminal behavior against
: >women. Put it in a sack, it's worthless.

: Ok.

: >: >: Bob thinks politics is for the politicians. And we have only to pay
: >: >: and to be quiet until the politicians have ruined our world.
: >: >: And bob thinks that we should be politicians ourselves when we don't
: >: >: want to let the world destroy by politicians.

: >And just where do you get off putting words into my mouth. Why don't you
: >speak for yourself, and I'll do the same. I know how to vote. If something
: >happens politically that I don't like I speak out, and I use my vote to try
: >and change it.

: Haha ! Very impressive. You vote for whatever and politicians do 4
: years whatever they want ! Very democratically !!
: Thats not democracy, that's fatalism. You could go into church and
: pray instead of VOTING. It has the same effect !

Not exactly. Perhaps that is what makes the USA *my* home. I like the
way the system works. If you don't, stay out.

: >: >How about you stop putting words into my mouth? It does tend to wear

: >: >thin and it makes you look like an idiot. My initial comment was that the
: >: >WMCCC event was *not* a bad event. The participants had a good time. The
: >: >competition was exciting. The event went off as planned. A very few didn't
: >: >show up. End of story. If the participants weren't bent out of shape, why
: >: >should anyone listen to *you*??

: >: I think you have problems to understand my images. Are you
: >: right-handed bob ? I mean - are you hip or square ?!

: >: >: And bob thinks that when politicians are STILL there, they are RIGHT!
: >: >: They have shown: we survided, so we are right.

: >: >: Oh boy. What a simple world. Now I know why Helmut Kohl is leader of
: >: >: germany since 1982. He is the best leader ! He showed his
: >: >: intelligence, his success, and we are only poor complainers... :-)

: >: >I begin to see the great urgency to develop the retroactive abortion pill
: >: >in Europe too.

: >: This is a nice sentence. I would like you to comment it further. What
: >: do you mean with this sentence ? I would like to get a precise answer
: >: from you, also my lawyer would like to get a precise answer from you
: >: - in this case !

: >I mean, that if your parents could purchase a retro-active abortion pill, they'd
: >likely be at the local drugstore buying one. You must really make them proud.
: >Every post has to have rape, murder and other crap included. This *is* computer
: >chess we are talking about you know??

: I do lots of computerchess, But I am living too. And fatalism may be
: YOUR way , and you call it democracy, but it is not my way.

I call democracy one person, one vote. Majority rules. Nothing complicated,
nor confusing about how it operates..

: I looks as if United States have not many philosophers. But they have

: McDonalds. You have really a language problem. We are not talking
: about computerchess here at all, we are talking about the point IF THE
: ICCA DOES THE JOB GOOD OR BAD !

I agree. I propose that they have. I've offered evidence since they have
organized over a dozen tournaments and participants still come back year after
year. If I don't like something, I don't do it over and over. Therefore, I
conclude that others also have liked what the ICCA has done. Q.E.D.

: Maybe you should take a look on the subject.

: When my parents should by a retro-active abortion pill, maybe your
: mother should tell your father the turth and tell him who was really
: your father !

And I could question whether you have one or not, but that's pointless. As
I said, I'll debate computer chess. You seem unwilling...

: >: >: > i don't have to be a chess programmer to criticize ICCA.

: >: >: > i am not (yet) arguing that they are failing to live up to their
: >: >: >charter. i am arguing that they did something immoral, regardless of
: >: >: >what their charter said. this is a public forum for discussion of
: >: >: >computer chess.

: >: >: Maybe Bob will change this in a few weeks, he is working on this :-)

: >: >What does this mean? I don't see anything immoral and neither do a lot of
: >: >other folks. Interesting that the ones screaming the loudest were not among
: >: >the participants *or* "possible participants". Ergo, if you don't like the
: >: >event, that is your business. From what I've heard from those there, it was
: >: >a lot of fun.

: >: You are right. That's all we need. Fun and money. The rest can die
: >: until... :-)

: >Again, the "die" word. You really do need help. If I had skipped Jakarta, not
: >one person would be alive today that isn't. Not one person is dead today that
: >wouldn't be had I not gone. It simply didn't affect anything. To keep imagining
: >that it did is unhealthy reasoning...

: If you would have skipped jakarta, you could not have been
: instrumented by them.

*I* wasn't instrumented by *anyone*. *I* made the decision for Crafty to
attend. *I* made arrangements for Tom to operate Crafty. I was *not* forced
in any way to go there against my will... So your comment seems meaningless...

: If I do not business with pimps, I am not the same pimp they are !

: If you think making business with pimps is not changing anything to
: your reputation ot helping the world, you are very naive.
: It looks for me you have no other choice to do computerchess because
: the rest of your brain is not able to differenciate or speak any other
: words than naive stuff.

It certainly can't decipher half of what you write. The above eludes me
completely... but it doesn't matter, really...

: >: >: >ICCA is fair game. get used to it. whether they

: >: >: >listen is up to them. i predict that they will continue to get
: >: >: >public flak until they start listening.

: >: >: Me too.

: >: >Only if they (a) get flak from many, rather than a few prattling on and on
: >: >about old news; (b) get flak directly, rather than by inuendo, implication,
: >: >and outright lies; and (c) are asked to correct specific problems first-hand.
: >: >So far, they haven't gotten anything formal, although you'd think they had from
: >: >the noise here. This is a public forum, not an ICCA suggestion box. I don't
: >: >expect them to take *any* action based on the stuff posted here, except to
: >: >possibly puke...

: >: No - they have nothing formal ! They got my email. An email is not
: >: formal because ICCA uses only PAPER-SHEETS ?? But why do they publish
: >: on internet then ?!

: >: What is formal ?!

: >: >:)

: >I have a vague idea (now) why they didn't respond to you. It appears to be a
: >futile gesture... either you really don't understand or you don't want to
: >understand or whatever...

: I can give this back to you. Please never stop computerchess. It looks
: this is the only thing you could do, in your position.

No, I can apparently be sucked into arguments with morons as well. I'd think
that I could avoid this. I would be pleased to find out about your socially
redeeming characteristics however, since you don't think I have any. You are
quite good at innuendoes, implications, and exaggerated (or completely false at
times) statements. Maybe that's good enough?

[Peter W. Gillgasch]

[Although being elevated to Englishness status I won't let you get away
with that one, Chris]

Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Hmmm.
> I accept that there is 'editorial' at the front. But what I mean by
> editorial is the totality of the magazine. There are other examples of
> direct personal attack in the ICCA journals.

Chapter and verse please.

> And it's with this evidence
> that I'ld say it has been used as an attack platform. I'll be developing
> this further in another nearby thread.

Uh oh. The future is so bright :)

> One example I can give you now. You remember the case when a competitor was
> alleged to have taken ROMs from a Mephisto program, built new pcb's and
> support around them, and entered the device in a tourney ... ?

Yeah, remember that. The guy was a German (or was he Austrian?) named
Langer, who copied a program by Richard Lang. Coincidence ?

> There was an article published, naming him, expelling him from tourneys for
> five years and so on.

Correct.

> You may well think the action taken was reasonable under the circumstances,
> but the article was also supposed to be a public humiliation, no ? I'ld
> call that an attack platform used by those in control of the media against
> someone without such power.

ARE YOU TOTALLY NUTS OR SOMETHING ? What should they have done ? Write
"oh, uh, there was a minor incident concerning some bastard who.... and
we had to expell him from the tourney. But we won't drop his name in
order to protect the guilty and we don't want to make his fiancee
unhappy". Gimme a break.

Can *YOU* imagine anything worse in a CC event than Langer has done ?
And *YOU* want to protect him ?

Tell that your grandmother, Chris. I don't believe a single word of
this. *YOU* seek arguments, no matter how bad or cheap they are, in
order to destroy the reputation of the ICCAJ.

Note that I respect your point of view, you seem to have a problem with
some of the ICCA folks, why don't you try to settle that in private
instead of using r.g.c.c. as an "attack platform" ?

> Please note, I'm *not* referring to the rights and wrongs of the incident
> itself - but merely the use to which controlled print media can, and has
> been put.

I'd call this "information about a tournament hosted by the ICCA and
about decisions made by the organization". You think it would have been
"better" to ban him from tourneys without anybody telling about it ?

[ snip ]

> However there is often more to ICCA statements than meets the eye.
> In my case, they alleged that my withdrawal from the Jakarta tourney was on
> grounds other than those I had stated. They stated an inaccurate, biased
> view, designed to attack my position and validate theirs. They've had ample
> opportunity to retract/apologise, but have failed to do so.

Chris, do they really have some sort of chance ?

> So, you'll forgive me for viewing 'official' ICCA statements with less
> respect and/or belief than yourself ?

Sure.

> I guess I can be slightly thankful to them, because, in so doing, they
> have publicly exposed the nature of their attitude towards me. Somewhat
> uncharitable, I'ld call it.

Well if I read your statement about the Portorose incident then I can
start to understand why, sorry. It seems [to me, personally] that you
are on a crusade. And you wonder why they lock up the fortress as soon
as the crusader appears on the horizon. Time to make peace IMHO.

[ snip ]

> But this wasn't the point you made. The point you made wasn't about the
> previous point I made either :)
> My point was that many details/factoids were omitted from the journal
> reports.
> The withdrawal of CSTal and Arthur.

Well they have written something that r.g.c.c. weenies [Newt, Fong,
Thorsten come to mind, Tueschen wasn't haunting our group back then] who
never participated in an ICCA sanctioned event with programs of their
own tried to destroy the tourney and some potential participants got
confused. In retrospective I'd say this is an accurate description of
what happended. Of course if some participants decide not to go to the
tourney based on political reasons (Suharto regime) - note that I
respect *that* reason - then you can *not* expect to find a detailed
report on that cases in the ICCAJ since it would be a slap in the face
of the sponsors [after taking their money].

A "take the money and run" editorial policy damages the ICCA, hence you
cannot expect them to deal with this issue that way, right ?

> The opposition from other programmers.
> and and and. All in all you wouldn't really have thought there was any
> dissent to Jakarta at all from reading the journal.

The fact that there was an article about the whole issue is food for
thought already, isn't it ? You don't expect the ICCA to take money from
Guadanarma university and then send them an issue as part of their
subscription where it is written in very clear words that some members
of the community hated this venue ?

> So I wasn't complaining about any lack of *my* view, simply that the
> picture was partial, and did not reflect my subjective version of reality.
> It was instead, their subjective version of reality.

Well, that is intrinsic to all publications, isn't it ?

> By the addition of the subjectives shall ye know it.
>
> > You don't have
> > to agree with someone to write to them;
>
> Look, I've written to them privately on many occasions and got precisely
> nowhere.
>
> Their last reply stated: "I decline to answer at this stage". Its in black
> and white. if you'ld like to travel from Nottingham to Oxford I can show it
> you. No problem. A black and white 'fact'.

Ok, you are not happy with them. We know that. What is the point to make
a big deal about pretty much of everything that is related with the
ICCA? Who does win *anything* by this ? The community ? The ICCA ? The
folks running the organization ? You ?

Isn't it more likely that either

(a) you continue to rant and rant and get tired someday, or die of
heart attack or something instead of doing CST work
(b) you continue to rant and rant and the ICCA chaps get tired someday,
or die of heart attack or something and nobody is willing to replace
them
(c) we all get profoundly tired of the whole issue and consider it
an amusing personal feud between you and the current board of
the ICCA, so you both waste your time on "us".

> > you don't have to support
> > their editorial line -- it's not a "house journal"; you wouldn't be
> > writing for *them* but for *us*, the readers; but it's your decision.
>
> Yes. There are other channels. I prefer those.
>
> Chris Whittington
>
>
> > And, regardless of your decision re the issues being discussed here,
> > I would still urge you to write *something* for formal publication
> > about CSTal [whether to ICCAJ or somewhere else].

Yeah.

-- Peter

[Urban Koistinen]

Robert Hyatt (hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu) wrote:
: I call democracy one person, one vote. Majority rules.

: Nothing complicated, nor confusing about how it operates..

It takes more to be a democracy.
With your definition the Soviet Union was a democracy.

Urban.K...@abc.se - e...@algonet.se
ps. did you really take your own advice about "love it or leave it"
when the death penalty was unconstitutional in the US
and went to the Soviet Union where it was still being used?
In the Jakarta thread you said you went there but didn't like
it much. Were you there for a tournament only, or longer?