Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

CW and the ICCA

44 views

Skip to first unread message

Tony Marsland

unread,

Feb 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/26/97

For the last three weeks I have tried unsuccessfully to exchange email
with Chris Whittington, but he seems to give this correspondence low
priority. In the past Chris has complained that the ICCA is
unresponsive to his complaints, while offering few speicific details.

His postings here (aside from the technical ones) are generally vague,
potentially ambiguous, misleading and in cases just plain wrong. Even
so he is rarely "man enough" to apologize sincerely when he has the
chance. Since he prefers to ignore my emails, I provide here a copy of
my most recent message for the record, and to provide rgcc readers with
a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Tony Marsland
ICCA President
-------------------------outstanding correspondence--------------
Mr.Chris Whittington 14 February 1997

Chris:

As you requested I attach the "newest" message from the ICCA to you,
and also what you seemed to referred to as the "last" message.

> From tony Wed Feb 5 17:27:15 1997
> Subject: 4 February 1997
> To: cal...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk (Calvin Hutt)
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:27:15 -0700 (MST)
> Cc: chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk
> Organization: University of Alberta
> Phone: (403) 492-3971 Fax: (403) 492-1071
>
> Mr Chris Whittington 5 February 1997
>
> Chris:
>
> Although I don't read rgcc now that the technical content is so hard to
> find, I have received the following excerpt from an ICCA member. The
> excerpt appears to be from a posting of yours dated
> Tue, 04 Feb 1997 11:38:03 rec.games.chess.computer
> in reply to an earlier posting by Dr. A.N. Walker
> you stated:
>
> "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'."
>
> Since it is possible that this excerpt relates to some of our earlier
> correspondence could you please clarify the following points
>
> 1. Who precisely does the "them" refer to when you say "written to them"?
> 2. Who does the "Their" refer to when you say "Their last reply"?
> 3. Exactly what was the date of that last reply?
> 4. Did I write the words "I decline to answer at this stage"?
> 5. If not then who did?
>
> If you are referring to some correspondence of mine in this posting
> would you please fax a copy of it to me at +1-403-492-1071
> so that I may refresh my memory of the precise context.
>
> Hope you are keeping busy
>
> Tony Marsland
> ICCA President
>
>
Although I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply to my outstanding
email I now attach my 20 Sept. 1996 reply to you, as you requested.
It is this message that you apparently misquoted. Rather than saying
"I decline to answer at this stage"
I actually said "I decline to comment on your other remarks at this time"
a totally different matter. Since those other remarks were
little better than a diatribe against all and sundry who have ever
slighted you since 1991, it seemed hardly appropriate for you to publish
them, let alone expect me to comment--but so be it.

Also, I would like to take issue with you about your repeated assertion
that the ICCA has been unresponsive to your requests. While I won't
speak for my colleagues, the messages I have received from you, and my
responses too, have been far longer that to any other ICCA member.
Indeed I would say that I (the ICCA) have been most responsive. We may
not have agreed with your point of view, but we certainly have
responded. To refresh your memory I list some of them:

>From tony Thu Oct 12 09:47:07 1995
replying to your message of a few days earlier
>From tony Mon Apr 29 14:56:13 1996
replying to your 27 April message
>From tony Sun Sep 1 18:28:11 1996
replying to a 28 August message from "calvin"
>From tony Thu Sep 19 21:17:15 1996
replying to a message from calvin on the same day
>From tony Fri Sep 20 22:28:13 1996
replying to a message from calvin on the same day.

Since your completely misleading remark to rgcc was in response to a
posting by Dr. A.N. Walker, and since you offered to let him see "in
black and white" the letter you were referring to, I enclose a copy of
this message to him, so that he can indeed see it without travelling to
Oxford. By this means at least one rgcc reader will be
better informed than your offerings to the rest.

Regards
Tony Marsland
ICCA President
CC: AN Walker

attached:-------------20 Sept 1996 email to "calvin"------------
> From tony Fri Sep 20 22:28:13 1996
> Subject: Re: Re: War and Peace
> To: cal...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:28:13 -0600 (MDT)
> In-Reply-To: <1...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> from "calvin" at Sep 20, 96 10:33:01 am
> Organization: University of Alberta
> Phone: (403) 492-3971 Fax: (403) 492-1071
>
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > Thank you for your prompt response.
> > I have to fly to Poland in about 10 minutes, so I will answer very quickly.
> >
> > 1. Invite to Jakarta.
> >
> > *If* Junior can have visas (both members) and either go, or make a
> > public statement that the issue is resolved to their satisfaction, ie.
> > that they could go if they wanted,a nd that they would be made welcome.
> >
> > Then I'll go. But time is of the essence. Its getting very close, it will
> > become difficult to get flights and so on.
> >
> It is your choice. The ICCA may expand on this matter at a later time.
..........several lines deleted...contains names of people--not relevant....
>
> The choice to participate is yours, but under the conditions of our original
> acceptance of the CST application.
>
> > 2. Your other response.
> >
> I decline to comment on your other remarks at this time.
>
> Tony Marsland
> ICCA President

Chris Whittington

unread,

Feb 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/26/97

Tony Marsland <to...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
<5f0lip$9...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>...

> For the last three weeks I have tried unsuccessfully to exchange email
> with Chris Whittington, but he seems to give this correspondence low
> priority.

Tony, you are well aware that I am/have been in private email discussions
with icca official Don Beal. I've not counted the emails, but would say
that in excess of 20 have passed up to the period I went away at the
beginning of last week. These emails have been given high priority because
they appeared to offer the possibility of making some progress in this long
running dispute.

At the same time you have been sending me emails on the topic below. Your
latest emails don't give me the impression of being designed to make any
progress at all.

You will know that as soon as I received your first email, I checked my
documentation, realised I was in error, and posted an apology, headed:
retraction and apology to icca.

Icca official Don Beal posted in reply: 'Thanks for the apology, Chris'.

At the same time I emailed to you stating that the person responsible for
email backups was away, and asked you to send me the documentation that you
had referring to the issue. Eventually you did send it.

It rather seems to me that apology followed by thanks closes the issue.

It also seemed that the minor piece of progress (I offered the apology as a
goodwill gesture as part of the Don Beal discussions, in the obviously vain
hope the the icca might be able to make progress on other issues) was
worthwhile. A number of people have posted on this group that they hope the
differences can be resolved.

Now you are seeking to continue. I consider this both silly and
provocative.

Silly because the issue was closed.
Silly because the difference between what I posted that was written and
what was actually written is hardly significant:

"I decline to answer at this stage" - what I wrote was said
"I decline to comment on your other remarks at this time" - what was
actually written

Provocative because I was not informed of any breakdown in the private
discussions. If the icca considers there is a breakdown, perhaps it would
be so good as to close the private discussion in a proper manner, with a
private explanation.
Provocative, because, by agreement I promised not to post anything that
could be viewed as 'inflammatory'.

> In the past Chris has complained that the ICCA is
> unresponsive to his complaints, while offering few speicific details.
>
> His postings here (aside from the technical ones) are generally vague,
> potentially ambiguous, misleading and in cases just plain wrong. Even
> so he is rarely "man enough"

When the going gets tough - the smut gets going.

Primitive statements of a gender specific nature usually end up in flame
wars.

Perhaps you could speak to your charming and eloquent colaborator,
Schaeffer about that.

You'll remember that he positioned himself for us:
Icca journal editor
Icca official
10 metres down the corridor from Tony Marsland
In daily contact
With knowledge of all the 'facts'

It didn't take him very long at all to descend to the gutter:

Schaeffer's contribution to the debate:
> This is my final posting on the subject; you can have the last word. I
see
> no point in arguing with you. Anyone who can write some of the violent
> horrible, degrading, demeaning and insulting things that you do has some
very
> serious personal problems to address. I think it best that I disappear
from
> your life, so that you have one less problem to resolve.

Now personal insult, abuse and lies have *never* been the way I've
operated with regard to icca issues. I've always been very careful not to
refer to individuals and not to be insulting.
I very much hope not, and could not believe, that your contribution could
descend to such depths.

But of course the questions arise, why has
a) Schaeffer not apologised ?
b) Why have you not distanced yourself, publicly, from this kind of abusive
contribution ? Especially when Schaeffer was so keen to inform us of his
close links with yourself.

> to apologize sincerely when he has the
> chance.

Unless you are intent on rewriting history, icca official Don Beal's
'thanks for the apology, chris' seems somewhat at variance.

Or does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing ?

> Since he prefers to ignore my emails, I provide here a copy of
> my most recent message for the record, and to provide rgcc readers with
> a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Since your message also contains verbatim and directly lifted accounts of a
sensitive nature written privately from me to you and referring to
negotiations over the Jakarta affair, and without my permission; it would
seem that you are breaking usenet rules about public broadcast of private
material.

Its a shame you should have misread what was a genuine attempt to clarify
the difficult situation that has existed for some time, instead claiming it
to be 'little better than a diatribe ....'. I take that as a rude response.

My purpose in presenting to you the history of these problems was twofold:

a) since I'm aware that my own view can only be my strongly held opinion
rather than the 'facts', I had hoped that some of the issues of concern
might turn out to be less important after seeing the other point of view,
and vice versa.

b) to open a private dialog with you, in an attempt to resolve the
difficulties

You have chosen not to respond to these issues. Obviously you're too busy
for such trivia.

>
> Also, I would like to take issue with you about your repeated assertion
> that the ICCA has been unresponsive to your requests. While I won't
> speak for my colleagues, the messages I have received from you, and my
> responses too, have been far longer that to any other ICCA member.
> Indeed I would say that I (the ICCA) have been most responsive. We may
> not have agreed with your point of view, but we certainly have
> responded. To refresh your memory I list some of them:
>
> >From tony Thu Oct 12 09:47:07 1995
> replying to your message of a few days earlier
> >From tony Mon Apr 29 14:56:13 1996
> replying to your 27 April message
> >From tony Sun Sep 1 18:28:11 1996
> replying to a 28 August message from "calvin"
> >From tony Thu Sep 19 21:17:15 1996
> replying to a message from calvin on the same day
> >From tony Fri Sep 20 22:28:13 1996
> replying to a message from calvin on the same day.

I have posted directly to this group that you, Tony Marsland, replies
promptly. Look it up in Deja Vu news if you want.

As is clear however, you respond to those bits you wish to respond to or
were brought up by yourself, and selectively ignore other bits. This I find
frustrating even though I've become rather used to it.

Look at it any way you want: selectively responsive or selectively
unresponsive.

However this is not the case with all icca correspondence.
Form my memory and documentation there is the following case:

As you are aware the September 1992 ICCA journal published what I
considered to be a libelous article. Part of the article called for
'severest action to be taken by the icca against CW'. And for what ? For
walking out of a Computer Olympiad Ltd tournament (I'm not aware this is an
icca organisation, BTW) because of what I perceived of as third rate
political decisions being taken to my detriment. I don't have to stay in
tournaments I see as (a) badly organised and (b) executing decisions based
on personal animosity and political expedience.

1. I wrote to the icca journal editor at the address given in the journal
in complaint immediately.
This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

2. Two weeks later I wrote a chasing letter.
This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

3. At this time rumours started to emerge from Germany that CW had been
banned from icca tournaments. Presumably the 'severest action' referred to
above.

3. On 30th December 1992 a solicitors letter was sent demanding (a) an
unqualified apology and (b) confirmation that the icca is not to take
action against CW's benefit.
This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

4. On 19th January 1993 a solicitors chasing letter was sent.
This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

Perhaps I should point out at this time that as an icca member, I felt it
quite obligatory that there would at least be a reply. This apparently is
not the icca's view.

5. On the 15th March 1993 a further solicitors letter was sent, threatening
to proceed to action.
This time a reply was received, acknowledging copies (in the plural) of
letters received. Proof: the icca journal had the letters, and ignored
them.
The reply was not satisfactory and totally ignored the issue of the icca
not taking action. Ie no confirmation and no denial.

6. On 6th May 1993 a further letter was sent enclosing the text of a
suitable retraction to be published. The letter also requested an assurance
that no action has been taken against CW. The icca declined to make an
editorial apology. Again the question of 'severe action' was ignored. No
confirmation, no denial.

Will that do for evidence of unresponsivity ?

Of course the big question arises. Did the icca unofficially ban one of its
members for an alleged minor incident at a non-icca event ?

It seems to me unlikely that there was any official, minuted ban, there
were no good grounds.

But it seems to me, given the non-response of the icca, that I was to be
left in no doubt that I was:

(a) very unwelcome at icca events

(b) unofficially banned

by the refusal to address, confirm or deny.

Further events have confirmed me in this view.

Questions:

1. Why does the icca journal and icca require six letters, including four
from solicitors, and a period of several months before giving me the
courtesy of a reply ?

2. Why no reply to the repeated question ?

3. Did the icca not realise that silence would be interpreted as a ban ?

4. Did the icca believe it could do whatever it wanted without any
accountability ?

etc. etc. etc.

>
> Since your completely misleading remark to rgcc was in response to a

In view of the actual contents of the email, now that we both know it, it
seems to me that the comment 'completely misleading' is 'somewhat
misleading'.

Are you going to decline to answer at this stage, or are you going to
decline to comment on my other remarks at this time ?

Chris Whittington

mclane

unread,

Feb 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/27/97

to...@cs.ualberta.ca (Tony Marsland) wrote:

>For the last three weeks I have tried unsuccessfully to exchange email
>with Chris Whittington, but he seems to give this correspondence low
>priority. In the past Chris has complained that the ICCA is
>unresponsive to his complaints, while offering few speicific details.

Chris was in holiday, he was skiing ! How can he reply to you, when he

did not even reply to me ! Normally I speak any day with him.

>His postings here (aside from the technical ones) are generally vague,
>potentially ambiguous, misleading and in cases just plain wrong.

This is nice. That shows us that YOU are always right, polite, and
precise.

How easy the world can be !!!

> Even
>so he is rarely "man enough" to apologize sincerely when he has the
>chance. Since he prefers to ignore my emails, I provide here a copy of
>my most recent message for the record, and to provide rgcc readers with
>a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.

When I remember it right, Don Beal (who is also ICCA official) sent
me an email where he told me, that it is NOT allowed to quote out of
private EMAIL into a newsgroup:

He wrote:

Mclanes text:
>> >
>> > Maybe you could be so polite to answer to my questions.
>> > We want to discuss this stuff on some german servers
>> > that deal with computerchess !

Don Beals answer:
>This email is a personal response to your direct questions.
>Generally accepted standards of behaviour are that it is not normally
>appropriate to broadcast communications received privately.

!!!!!!!!

Please consider that I sent my original email to NO private person,
but to an official organisation.
Please consider that HE answered with this STANDARDS-hint although I
have never planned this old email to sent to a private person anyway,
therefore it was only written with HELLO and no name in front of it.
Also I have NOT quoted out of his email, but told organization ICCA
that I would like to get some answer to discuss this topic on some
german-chess-servers.

AGAIN: I have NOT done it. I only asked to get an answer that I could
discuss it.
Instead I get the advise of DON BEAL not to do this (discussions about
ICCA are forbidden !! :-) ) because it is not appropriate to broadcast
communications I receive privately.

I would have never done this here, but now I read TONY MARSLAND,
another OFFICIAL of the ICCA, posting out of privat-email
-stuff with Chris W.

When I send a request on some points , and wanted to discuss it with
my friend in a pluralistic way on the net, I was instantly taught
about rules of communication.

When Chris Whittington asks something and gets an answer from
Tony Marsland then TONY MARSLAND IS QUOTING OUT OF PRIVAT-
CORRESPONDANCE !!!!!!

Thats a joke , isn't it ?!

Please inform yourself about

>Generally accepted standards of behaviour are that it is not normally
>appropriate to broadcast communications received privately.

Mr. Marsland instead of breaking these standards here.

>Chris:

In the above context the sentence is totally different. But later you
quote also the CONTEXT and there I am on Chris' side and think, your
comment was meant the way Chris interprets it.

Whatever. It is not important. We can all live with an ICCA that has
officials who DO WHAT THEY WANT and decide whatever they want (The
Boss is always right -----> if the boss is not right, rule one is
working.) like Van den Herik saying: Chris is not allowed to reset his
machine because Louwmann is too important person who could damage ICCA
by giving a veto against Chris' wish to reset his machine.

I will tell you something: Loumann has quoted in MByte that Chris
programs always crashes and also that this Chris' way has no good
reputation. When somebody has shown that he has something against
another person, and that somebody is ignorant:
then it was Louwman by saying these things about chris,
you and your friends by showing us here how arrogant you are, and by
using a very weak style that is maybe POLITE but low-level in the IQ
and also in the argumentation.

With all your words here you have not shown any evidence despite the
fact that you are ignorant, intolerant and unfair.

I am not interested in the fact if you are a good husband to your wife
or a nice father to your children or nice friend to other ICCA-members
who get private-telephone calls from you.

This is not for interest for me. Hitler was also always very polite
and friendly to his children.
Goebbels had many children (arround 6) but on the other hand killed
all of them qith Cyankali.
(Now you will maybe again think I have related you to them because I
think you are as bad as them. But that is NOT my intention. I refer to
these very contrasting persons, because THEY were nice persons in
private, and killed many people in their job !! They behaved like
underdogs at the office and went home and kissed their wifes and
touched their children on the head. THAT is my point. I know that you
and all the others are nice guys! I had the same impression when I met
YOU and also when I met Levy. But thats NOT the point. If you make
wrong decisions, the decisions are wrong. Not the person. You don't
understand this, or you are not willing to see the difference anyway.
If somebody is GOD and decides to give Adam a girl called Eve. And he
sees afterwards that EVE was a mistake because she temptated ADAM
under the influence of the snake to eat from the TREE of knowledge,
than EVE was a wrong decision. It doesn't matter if GOD is a nice guy
or I am believing in him-. If the act was wrong, his personality
cannot hide or replace this.)

My point is NOT that you are an unfriendly person or whatever.
I do only refer to your methods and the ignorant and commanding tone
in your official posts.

I decline to comment on your other remarks at this time, Mr. Marsland.
But I will take all rights to comment on your posts whenever I want,
that is for sure.

I am not flying to polen next day, but I will drive to Witten, that is
also very far away from here :-)

Jonathan Schaeffer

unread,

Feb 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/27/97

Mr. Whittington, you keep coming back for more...

Let me make it clear first of all that I had nothing to do with Tony's
posting for which you responded. I do, however, take exception with your
remarks about me in your response to him. I have been courteous to keep
my opinion of you to myself for the past few weeks. I was hoping you would
reciprocate but, alas, no...

> Perhaps you could speak to your charming and eloquent collaborator,
> Schaeffer about that.
Thank you. Since you did not put a smiley after that, I will take this as
a compliment.

> You'll remember that he positioned himself for us:
> Icca journal editor
> Icca official
> 10 metres down the corridor from Tony Marsland
> In daily contact
> With knowledge of all the 'facts'

Excuse me? Do you read the news? Or do you have your usual selective
version of events? This was posted because of at least two news postings
of people who did not know who I was. I merely clarified that I was in a
position to know something about the situation. I do not post often
to rgcc and thus some people are not familiar with my qualifications. I
would love to get more actively involved in rgcc, if the signal to noise
ratio improved (hint, hint).

> It didn't take him very long at all to descend to the gutter:

I cannot let this pass. I let your "beating my wife" comment go without
the adequate response it deserved. That was the worst gutter comment I
have seen on the net. If you are going to be "funny" or "clever" then
please:
1) Learn how to pose an unanswerable question properly.
2) Pose the question in a context where your "cleverness" will be
appreciated, and not in a posting full of derogatory remarks - clouding
the issue of what is "funny" and what is fact.
3) Never, ever joke about a horrible crime.

You think it is all very funny, but I received several e-mails from people
who *did not* understand your clever remarks until someone else explained them
on the net. If even one person could misinterpret your horrible remark,
then you had an obligation not to state it.

> Anyone who can write some of the violent horrible, degrading, demeaning
> and insulting things that you do has some very serious personal problems
> to address.

I stand by this comment. There is nothing funny or clever about "beating
my wife". Anyone who would use such an analogy has a real problem.

> But of course the questions arise, why has

> a) Schaeffer not apologized ?
Well, since you asked...
I am sorry that I did not do this a few weeks ago:

I formally request that you publicly apologize for your remarks.

> Now personal insult, abuse and lies have *never* been the way I've
> operated with regard to icca issues. I've always been very careful not to
> refer to individuals and not to be insulting.

I am tempted to include some of your previous postings to show just how
silly a remark this is. But that would force me to reread your drivel and,
to be honest, I can't stomach the thought.

Over the past few weeks, you and several of your "friends" have made
derogatory remarks about many people that I respect. David Levy, Tony
Marsland, Don Beal and Jaap van den Herik have each made major contributions
to computer chess, and continue to do so to this day. We have World Champ-
ionships, computer chess tournaments, the ICCA, and the ICCA Journal in
large part due to their efforts. All of these people are men of integrity
who have literally put hundreds (thousands) of hours of their time into
promoting computer chess. They deserve your respect, not your scorn.

Don Fong

unread,

Feb 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/27/97

In article <5f3127$9...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
[...to CW...]

>> You'll remember that he positioned himself for us:
>> Icca journal editor
>> Icca official
>> 10 metres down the corridor from Tony Marsland
>> In daily contact
>> With knowledge of all the 'facts'

>Excuse me? Do you read the news? Or do you have your usual selective
>version of events? This was posted because of at least two news postings
>of people who did not know who I was.

take it easy. CW didn't say there was anything wrong with
your touting your qualifications. IMHO he was mainly trying to
justify his belief that your remarks were representative of ICCA.

[...]

>> It didn't take him very long at all to descend to the gutter:

>I cannot let this pass. I let your "beating my wife" comment go without
>the adequate response it deserved. That was the worst gutter comment I
>have seen on the net. If you are going to be "funny" or "clever" then
>please:
>1) Learn how to pose an unanswerable question properly.
>2) Pose the question in a context where your "cleverness" will be
> appreciated, and not in a posting full of derogatory remarks - clouding
> the issue of what is "funny" and what is fact.
>3) Never, ever joke about a horrible crime.

it wasn't clever. it was a very pedestrian, completely ordinary
observation. it wasn't funny. it was an analogy, and a correct one.

>You think it is all very funny, but I received several e-mails from people
>who *did not* understand your clever remarks until someone else explained them
>on the net. If even one person could misinterpret your horrible remark,
>then you had an obligation not to state it.

gee, maybe we should all write in monosyllables, too in case
there is even one person who does not have a dictionary. maybe all
writing should be reduced to the third grade level.
or maybe, just maybe everybody should try to read with an awareness
that when they see something that seems outrageous, it may mean
something far different in the proper cultural context. and keeping
that in mind, ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions.

>> Anyone who can write some of the violent horrible, degrading, demeaning
>> and insulting things that you do has some very serious personal problems
>> to address.

>I stand by this comment. There is nothing funny or clever about "beating
>my wife". Anyone who would use such an analogy has a real problem.

fascinating... such righteous indignation over a few misunderstood
words. yet such a deafening silence when ICCA accepts the hospitality
of a brutal dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands.

>> But of course the questions arise, why has

>> a) Schaeffer not apologized ?
>Well, since you asked...
>I am sorry that I did not do this a few weeks ago:
>
>I formally request that you publicly apologize for your remarks.

it might help if you could identify specifically which remarks
of CW you found objectionable, and explain the logical basis for
your objection.

>> Now personal insult, abuse and lies have *never* been the way I've
>> operated with regard to icca issues. I've always been very careful not to
>> refer to individuals and not to be insulting.

>I am tempted to include some of your previous postings to show just how
>silly a remark this is. But that would force me to reread your drivel and,
>to be honest, I can't stomach the thought.

cmon, be a man. upon rereading, you may find additional understanding.
i also have to ask, isn't it possible you have mistakenly attributed to
CW remarks that were in fact made by someone else? i truly have no
idea what you meant by "violence" in his posts. you said this even before
he made his "beating your wife" analogy.

>Over the past few weeks, you and several of your "friends" have made
>derogatory remarks about many people that I respect. David Levy, Tony
>Marsland, Don Beal and Jaap van den Herik have each made major contributions
>to computer chess, and continue to do so to this day. We have World Champ-
>ionships, computer chess tournaments, the ICCA, and the ICCA Journal in
>large part due to their efforts. All of these people are men of integrity
>who have literally put hundreds (thousands) of hours of their time into
>promoting computer chess. They deserve your respect, not your scorn.

i will stipulate that they are men of integrity. but that doesn't
make them infallible. and if they did make a mistake in one case, men
of integrity will try to right it.
i will stipulate that they have volunteered thousands of hours.
but it was not entirely without compensation. it would be inaccurate
to claim otherwise.

mclane

unread,

Feb 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/28/97

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

>Mr. Whittington, you keep coming back for more...

Look in your mirror !!!

>Let me make it clear first of all that I had nothing to do with Tony's
>posting for which you responded.

Hahahahahah !!!! You are really not his brother nor his friend. You
are
OBJECTIVE. Of course. You are fair. You are intelligent. You are
eloquent. Brilliant. This statement is marvellous.

>I do, however, take exception with your
>remarks about me in your response to him. I have been courteous to keep
>my opinion of you to myself for the past few weeks. I was hoping you would
>reciprocate but, alas, no...

Please try to be silent yourself. I have not seing you giving any
positive contribution to this group, would Bruce say.

>> Perhaps you could speak to your charming and eloquent collaborator,
>> Schaeffer about that.
>Thank you. Since you did not put a smiley after that, I will take this as
>a compliment.

There is Bildung and there is Einbildung ! Some people are even that
narcistic that they have to make a compliment out of an insult.

>Excuse me? Do you read the news? Or do you have your usual selective
>version of events?

Oh - your rethorical level has increased !!

> This was posted because of at least two news postings

>of people who did not know who I was. I merely clarified that I was in a
>position to know something about the situation. I do not post often
>to rgcc

This was ok in the past. Please try to decrease your posting level to
sero. Thanks.

>and thus some people are not familiar with my qualifications. I
>would love to get more actively involved in rgcc, if the signal to noise
>ratio improved (hint, hint).

You should draw a comic and write the texts in the bubbles yourself.
You are really a big poet.

>> It didn't take him very long at all to descend to the gutter:

Hahahaha ! Horrible crime ! Killing inhabitants in Jakarta was not a
horrible crime, because ICCA is ONLY INTERESTED IN COMPUTER CHESS AND
NOT IN UNIMPORTANT KILLING OF INHABITANTS.

Brilliant. You - of course - do never rape your wife. We all know
this. And your "friends", who have sent you these emails do the same,
too.

Horrible.

>> Anyone who can write some of the violent horrible, degrading, demeaning
>> and insulting things that you do has some very serious personal problems
>> to address.

>I stand by this comment. There is nothing funny or clever about "beating
>my wife". Anyone who would use such an analogy has a real problem.

Right. We are all ill, and you are eloquent and normal.
Also you do not rape your wife, we do.

>> But of course the questions arise, why has

>> a) Schaeffer not apologized ?
>Well, since you asked...
>I am sorry that I did not do this a few weeks ago:

>I formally request that you publicly apologize for your remarks.

This is really a nice game, isn't it. This Don beal also told me, I
should apologize to him for whatever.

Why should I apologize to people I don't like !
And now to you: please post some interesting stuff instead of your
commandments and other bullshit.

>> Now personal insult, abuse and lies have *never* been the way I've
>> operated with regard to icca issues. I've always been very careful not to
>> refer to individuals and not to be insulting.

>I am tempted to include some of your previous postings to show just how
>silly a remark this is. But that would force me to reread your drivel and,
>to be honest, I can't stomach the thought.

You carry owls to Athens.
This dioes not explain why van den herik behaves like the sherif of
nottingham and adjudicates one day this way, and the other day for
totally other reasons.
You cannot hide this with shallow snobistic stuff like the above. Try
it again. But shouting louder will not explain it to us.

> We have World Champ-
>ionships, computer chess tournaments, the ICCA, and the ICCA Journal in
>large part due to their efforts. All of these people are men of integrity
>who have literally put hundreds (thousands) of hours of their time into
>promoting computer chess. They deserve your respect, not your scorn.

Whavever they deserve. They are not GODS. And if they make a mistake,
it should be allowed to ASK why they have done THIS and these
questions should be answered.

You have given up to answer anyway. Instead you repeat and repeat and
repeat that this guy or that guy is a VIP. What does this has to do
with the critics ???????

Have you ever heard of terms like democracy or civilisation. We are
not anymore in the time of sitting on the trees and the biggest
ape(the one with the highest integrity) deserves our respect.

Respect cannot save you from beeing asked if your decision are
accurate.

mclane

unread,

Feb 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/28/97

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

>Tony Marsland <to...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote in article
><5f0lip$9...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>...
>> For the last three weeks I have tried unsuccessfully to exchange email
>> with Chris Whittington, but he seems to give this correspondence low
>> priority.

>Tony, you are well aware that I am/have been in private email discussions
>with icca official Don Beal. I've not counted the emails, but would say
>that in excess of 20 have passed up to the period I went away at the
>beginning of last week. These emails have been given high priority because
>they appeared to offer the possibility of making some progress in this long
>running dispute.

>At the same time you have been sending me emails on the topic below. Your
>latest emails don't give me the impression of being designed to make any
>progress at all.

Brilliant Chris, Tony has not told us THAT.

>You will know that as soon as I received your first email, I checked my
>documentation, realised I was in error, and posted an apology, headed:
>retraction and apology to icca.

>Icca official Don Beal posted in reply: 'Thanks for the apology, Chris'.

Thats true.

>At the same time I emailed to you stating that the person responsible for
>email backups was away, and asked you to send me the documentation that you
>had referring to the issue. Eventually you did send it.

>It rather seems to me that apology followed by thanks closes the issue.

!!!! The ICCA never forgets about critics.

>It also seemed that the minor piece of progress (I offered the apology as a
>goodwill gesture as part of the Don Beal discussions, in the obviously vain
>hope the the icca might be able to make progress on other issues) was
>worthwhile. A number of people have posted on this group that they hope the
>differences can be resolved.

>Now you are seeking to continue. I consider this both silly and
>provocative.

It is. Both.

>Silly because the issue was closed.
>Silly because the difference between what I posted that was written and
>what was actually written is hardly significant:

I have only one expalantion for THEIR reaction: they have no other way
of handle it, because we are right and they cannot defend anymore.

>"I decline to answer at this stage" - what I wrote was said
>"I decline to comment on your other remarks at this time" - what was
>actually written

>Provocative because I was not informed of any breakdown in the private
>discussions. If the icca considers there is a breakdown, perhaps it would
>be so good as to close the private discussion in a proper manner, with a
>private explanation.
>Provocative, because, by agreement I promised not to post anything that
>could be viewed as 'inflammatory'.

It is even inflammatory to be different opinons than ICCA.
(THE BOSS IS ALWAYS RIGHT !)

>> In the past Chris has complained that the ICCA is
>> unresponsive to his complaints, while offering few speicific details.
>>
>> His postings here (aside from the technical ones) are generally vague,
>> potentially ambiguous, misleading and in cases just plain wrong. Even
>> so he is rarely "man enough"

>When the going gets tough - the smut gets going.

Right. They develop into small school boys throwing with mud.
And why ? Because you do not stop posting your opinon.

You should not think chris, that these people are better humans than a
non-well-educated worker in some slums of birmingham.
Only because they can play chess and have studied, their lack of
decency can be enourmous as their posts show us here.

>But of course the questions arise, why has
>a) Schaeffer not apologised ?
>b) Why have you not distanced yourself, publicly, from this kind of abusive
>contribution ? Especially when Schaeffer was so keen to inform us of his
>close links with yourself.

>> to apologize sincerely when he has the
>> chance.

>Unless you are intent on rewriting history, icca official Don Beal's
>'thanks for the apology, chris' seems somewhat at variance.

>Or does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing ?

Only Ferederic Friedel is informed about anything. He gets the posts
and emails from months directly to his computer and can write articles
about it. Between Beal, Schaeffer and Marsland there is not so much
dialogue. They have not enough RESOURCES. I will not try to find out,
in which fields these resources do lie.

mclane

unread,

Feb 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/28/97

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

>> Since he prefers to ignore my emails, I provide here a copy of
>> my most recent message for the record, and to provide rgcc readers with
>> a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.

>Since your message also contains verbatim and directly lifted accounts of a
>sensitive nature written privately from me to you and referring to
>negotiations over the Jakarta affair, and without my permission; it would
>seem that you are breaking usenet rules about public broadcast of private
>material.

This is really shocking now. As I told you chris, don beal send me
this nice answer i a private email where he explained in a very
difficult snobistic tone, that broadcasting of private
email-correspondance is not STANDARD.

Now this OFFICIAL is breaking this standard , not the private person
Tony Marsland is breaking this STANDARD, but the official ICCA
president is doing it !!!!!

Unbelievable. In britain , if he would be a politician, he would have
instantly been fired or had to retire from work for this failure.
Or what do you think ?

>>
>> Tony Marsland
>> ICCA President

>Its a shame you should have misread what was a genuine attempt to clarify
>the difficult situation that has existed for some time, instead claiming it
>to be 'little better than a diatribe ....'. I take that as a rude response.

You are right, Chris.

>My purpose in presenting to you the history of these problems was twofold:

>a) since I'm aware that my own view can only be my strongly held opinion
>rather than the 'facts', I had hoped that some of the issues of concern
>might turn out to be less important after seeing the other point of view,
>and vice versa.

>b) to open a private dialog with you, in an attempt to resolve the
>difficulties

>You have chosen not to respond to these issues. Obviously you're too busy
>for such trivia.

Yes , they have much more important things to do.

>I have posted directly to this group that you, Tony Marsland, replies
>promptly. Look it up in Deja Vu news if you want.

>As is clear however, you respond to those bits you wish to respond to or
>were brought up by yourself, and selectively ignore other bits. This I find
>frustrating even though I've become rather used to it.

They puzzle their own REALITY out of others post.

>Look at it any way you want: selectively responsive or selectively
>unresponsive.

Selsective anyway !

>However this is not the case with all icca correspondence.
>Form my memory and documentation there is the following case:

>As you are aware the September 1992 ICCA journal published what I
>considered to be a libelous article. Part of the article called for
>'severest action to be taken by the icca against CW'. And for what ? For
>walking out of a Computer Olympiad Ltd tournament

How could you do such an insane thing like walking out of an ICCA
tournament. You should be punished for this. If the landlord crosses
your way, you have to take the hat out of your head, if not, you are
killed by the sherif of nottingham.

>(I'm not aware this is an
>icca organisation, BTW) because of what I perceived of as third rate
>political decisions being taken to my detriment. I don't have to stay in
>tournaments I see as (a) badly organised and (b) executing decisions based
>on personal animosity and political expedience.

WHO was the guy that made the decisions. Don't tell me chris that it
was
van den Herik. He cannot do any bad decision. He has a well
reputation. That is a shield against any criticism.

>1. I wrote to the icca journal editor at the address given in the journal
>in complaint immediately.
>This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

Why should it. As it was discussed in this newesgroups before,
journals do not publish or answer requests of misleading persons.
They cannot focus on people like you. They have much more important
things to do than to publish pluralistic. Censorship is not the only
weapon.

>2. Two weeks later I wrote a chasing letter.
>This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

Why should it.
Are you a professor Chris. Are you important. You are just a member.
And you are an unconvinient member. You are not to control. And you do
not follow anything like lemmings.

>3. At this time rumours started to emerge from Germany that CW had been
>banned from icca tournaments. Presumably the 'severest action' referred to
>above.

Where in germany ? Maybe this wll informed Frederic Friedel in Hamburg
? he normally gets any emails from ICCA-officials.

>3. On 30th December 1992 a solicitors letter was sent demanding (a) an
>unqualified apology and (b) confirmation that the icca is not to take
>action against CW's benefit.
>This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

What ? again Tony did not tell us this. What a pity. He seems to have
a lack of memory. maybe he should reset his memory from time to time
against this blackout.

>4. On 19th January 1993 a solicitors chasing letter was sent.
>This letter did not receive the courtesy of a reply.

I would guess your letters are too impolite. Also your Oxford-english
is too colloquial.

>Perhaps I should point out at this time that as an icca member, I felt it
>quite obligatory that there would at least be a reply. This apparently is
>not the icca's view.

Tony has told us different. Why didn't he tell us about THOSE
conversations. Who of you two can be trusted.
Do you have evidence for sending these letters ???
If so - show us. I want to see if the president of the ICCA is a liar,
or where the problem comes from.
BTW: If you have evidence - how can Tony write this posts here
whith knowledge about this story before ??????

Is he really trying to misinforming us ?

>5. On the 15th March 1993 a further solicitors letter was sent, threatening
>to proceed to action.

Aha.

>This time a reply was received, acknowledging copies (in the plural) of
>letters received. Proof: the icca journal had the letters, and ignored
>them.

WHAAAAAT ?????

>The reply was not satisfactory and totally ignored the issue of the icca
>not taking action. Ie no confirmation and no denial.

Are these guys crazy , lazy or ill ?

>6. On 6th May 1993 a further letter was sent enclosing the text of a
>suitable retraction to be published. The letter also requested an assurance
>that no action has been taken against CW. The icca declined to make an
>editorial apology. Again the question of 'severe action' was ignored. No
>confirmation, no denial.

And these persons shall help computerchess develop ????????

>Will that do for evidence of unresponsivity ?

for me, it does.

>Of course the big question arises. Did the icca unofficially ban one of its
>members for an alleged minor incident at a non-icca event ?

WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT ?
Please tell me names Chris !!!!

>It seems to me unlikely that there was any official, minuted ban, there
>were no good grounds.

>But it seems to me, given the non-response of the icca, that I was to be
>left in no doubt that I was:

>(a) very unwelcome at icca events

>(b) unofficially banned

>by the refusal to address, confirm or deny.

>Further events have confirmed me in this view.

>Questions:

>1. Why does the icca journal and icca require six letters, including four
>from solicitors, and a period of several months before giving me the
>courtesy of a reply ?

If you can show us really evidence for this, chris, it would give us
some main views on these people.

>2. Why no reply to the repeated question ?

???? Because you are not - well- reputated ? Whatever this means.

>3. Did the icca not realise that silence would be interpreted as a ban ?

For them silence is gold.

>4. Did the icca believe it could do whatever it wanted without any
>accountability ?

THEY THINK SO. That is really my point. They do whatever they want and
are proud of it.

>etc. etc. etc.

No - they wait until you give up. But you will never do !

>Chris Whittington

Chris Whittington

unread,

Feb 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/28/97

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

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article
<E6AJ8...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...

> "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >1. Why does the icca journal and icca require six letters, including
four
> >from solicitors, and a period of several months before giving me the
> >courtesy of a reply ?
>
> If you can show us really evidence for this, chris, it would give us
> some main views on these people.

Unlike the 'missing' black and white email, of which we now have found a
copy; the evidence is in the form of solicitor's correspondence obtained
from the solicitor's files relating to this issue.

I have it on my desk, in a large envelope.

Chris Whittington

brucemo

unread,

Feb 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/28/97

This has gotten out of control again. Here is my very humble opinion.

1) The ICCA is failing to differentiate between its critics, and is responding improperly
to that part of the r.g.c.c. dialog that was initiated by Chris. There are people who
write very nasty stuff about the ICCA, Chris should not be expected to be responsible for
their viewpoints, in the same manner as I should not be held accountable for Bob's views
on the death penalty. Chris has said some bad stuff about the ICCA. Fine, he was angry.
Perhaps he and everyone else can get over it.

2) The post by Marsland should have been confined to email. Just when things are
starting to get quiet in here, something like this appears. The response is predictable.
Another month of ranting about Jakarta, personal attacks upon ICCA officials by the
obvious people, and waste of time for everyone. That's my viewpoint, yours may differ,
but if you'd written the previous sentence you would most certainly not have written
"another month of great fun".

3) The posts by Schaeffer should not have been written. Chris is not Satan. The
wife-beating thing was just an expression, with no literal meaning, in other
circumstances I may have made this comment myself. I would have been mistaken to have
made this comment, apparently, given that it is not an expression well-known to everyone,
but my point is that using the expression is not something to get excited about once it's
been pointed out to you what it means. Chris is not a prime reason for reduced signal to
noise, he is not particularly forthcoming about the internal details of his program, but
at least he has a program, and it is somewhat different from other programs, and his
points of view on technical matters are often useful, or are at least entertaining. His
posts are fine. Those who leave due to decreased signal to noise ratio are not doing a
thing about increasing it.

4) Let us please stop attempting to humiliate each other by demanding public apologies.
Conversely, it might be a good idea to give people less reason to ask for them. If it
would help, I will be the designated apologizer. I don't give a damn about any of this
crap, I just want people to make progress and derive enjoyment from this field. So I'm
sorry for everyone. Accepted? Good. Let's move on, set 'em up, you can play white the
first game.

5) I still hold out hope that an accomodation can be reached such that Chris is welcome,
and feels welcome, at ICCA events. Additionally I would also hope that a time will come
when accusations against ICCA officials will stop, that people will recognize that they
are contributing tremendously to this field, and will appreciate this. We need the ICCA,
it gives us organization, a printed forum for both our benefit and the benefit of those
who come after us, and these cool tournaments, which give us a chance to learn even more
from each other, as well as the chance to drink beer overseas at minimal expense.

Additional whining about Jakarta should please be sent to me via private email, with a
subject somewhat akin to "Does your computer pay you?" or "$ BILLS PAST DUE ?" or "Great
Biz. Opp".

Thank you,

bruce

mclane

unread,

Mar 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/1/97

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

>>I formally request that you publicly apologize for your remarks.

> it might help if you could identify specifically which remarks

>of CW you found objectionable, and explain the logical basis for
>your objection.

Logical basis ?! They don't like chris because he is sometimes
against them, he is not stupid, nor does he really need them, nor is
he unsuccesful in business, nor can they control his communication.

Is is the blind-point in their eyes !

So they have to attack chris, when chris is not living like they want
him to do. Same for any other guy. If THEY can't control it, it's
against them. That easy it is.

>>> Now personal insult, abuse and lies have *never* been the way I've
>>> operated with regard to icca issues. I've always been very careful not to
>>> refer to individuals and not to be insulting.

>>I am tempted to include some of your previous postings to show just how
>>silly a remark this is. But that would force me to reread your drivel and,
>>to be honest, I can't stomach the thought.

> cmon, be a man. upon rereading, you may find additional understanding.

>i also have to ask, isn't it possible you have mistakenly attributed to
>CW remarks that were in fact made by someone else? i truly have no
>idea what you meant by "violence" in his posts. you said this even before
>he made his "beating your wife" analogy.

I can subscibe the above. Where is the violence.
They are snobs. Thats it.

>>Over the past few weeks, you and several of your "friends" have made
>>derogatory remarks about many people that I respect. David Levy, Tony
>>Marsland, Don Beal and Jaap van den Herik have each made major contributions

>>to computer chess, and continue to do so to this day. We have World Champ-

>>ionships, computer chess tournaments, the ICCA, and the ICCA Journal in
>>large part due to their efforts. All of these people are men of integrity
>>who have literally put hundreds (thousands) of hours of their time into
>>promoting computer chess. They deserve your respect, not your scorn.

> i will stipulate that they are men of integrity. but that doesn't

>make them infallible. and if they did make a mistake in one case, men
>of integrity will try to right it.

If a man of integrity makes an error, he stands up, says: I have made
a mistake, he asks his friends and sits down.

ICCA guys are different. They first have to say:
STop your mouth, how can you call us having done a mistake.
We do never mistakes. WHO ARE YOU to tell these words. You are
nothing. We are all.

Of course such a point of view can never find out about the truth.
Such a guy is blind.

> i will stipulate that they have volunteered thousands of hours.
>but it was not entirely without compensation. it would be inaccurate
>to claim otherwise.

Right. They profit from organizing. The programmers were the pieces on
their board, and the best programmers were used to male money in
business deals and connections.

Thats the turn of the friendly card.

mclane

unread,

Mar 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/1/97

"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have it on my desk, in a large envelope.

You can sho me later. Ok.
>Chris Whittington

Ed Schroder

unread,

Mar 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/1/97

to mcl...@prima.ruhr.de

From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)

>>I formally request that you publicly apologize for your remarks.

> it might help if you could identify specifically which remarks
>of CW you found objectionable, and explain the logical basis for
>your objection.

: Logical basis ?! They don't like chris because he is sometimes
: against them, he is not stupid, nor does he really need them, nor is
: he unsuccesful in business, nor can they control his communication.

: Is is the blind-point in their eyes !

: So they have to attack chris, when chris is not living like they want
: him to do. Same for any other guy. If THEY can't control it, it's
: against them. That easy it is.

> cmon, be a man. upon rereading, you may find additional >understanding.

: I can subscibe the above. Where is the violence.
: They are snobs. Thats it.

> i will stipulate that they are men of integrity. but that doesn't

>make them infallible. and if they did make a mistake in one case, men
>of integrity will try to right it.

: If a man of integrity makes an error, he stands up, says: I have made
: a mistake, he asks his friends and sits down.

: ICCA guys are different. They first have to say:
: STop your mouth, how can you call us having done a mistake.
: We do never mistakes. WHO ARE YOU to tell these words. You are
: nothing. We are all.

: Of course such a point of view can never find out about the truth.
: Such a guy is blind.

> i will stipulate that they have volunteered thousands of hours.
>but it was not entirely without compensation. it would be inaccurate
>to claim otherwise.

: Right. They profit from organizing. The programmers were the pieces on
: their board, and the best programmers were used to male money in
: business deals and connections.

: Thats the turn of the friendly card.

Thorsten,

I have read all the stuff...

Without chosing sides for the ICCA or Chris I have missed the solutions,
the proposals or how things must be arranged better for the future.

Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

- Ed Schroder -
Another ICCA member

Chris Whittington

unread,

Mar 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/1/97

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

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article

<E68Kx...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...

Thorsten, Hitler didn't have any children.

He had a pretty girlfriend, Eva Braun, whom he married as the Russians
entered Berlin, but children not.

In England we have a song that goes:

Hitler has only got one ball,
Goering has two but very small
Himmler has something similar
but poor old Goeballs has no balls at all.

Obviously we can't count, since it appears that it was Hitler that had no
balls rather than Geobbels, but anyway ...

Probably Stalin can tell us, he would have had the surviving balls pickled
and sent back to the Kremlin for storage in his deskside cabinet.

Hitler was reportedly very nice to his dog and cat though.

Chris Whittington

mclane

unread,

Mar 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/2/97

>Thorsten, Hitler didn't have any children.

Really . Sorry . I am an american and don't know what europe is.
I meant that Hitler was always trying to be nice to children, whatever
children he choose, and Goebbels had these amount of children, all
ones very nice. Any dictator is loving these Dictator kisses baby
pcitures, it should show: oh - the guy is a guy like us ! He can kiss
babies.

>He had a pretty girlfriend, Eva Braun, whom he married as the Russians
>entered Berlin, but children not.

Yes - and his last words in his testemony were: that the germans have
betrayed him in the end.

>In England we have a song that goes:

>Hitler has only got one ball,

Hitler was asexual ! He only loved a cousin that was a child.

>Goering has two but very small

Goering burned the Reichstag.

>Himmler has something similar
>but poor old Goeballs has no balls at all.

He had enough to produce roundabout 6 children.

>Obviously we can't count, since it appears that it was Hitler that had no
>balls rather than Geobbels, but anyway ...

Maybe we can clone them in the next years out of some hairs or bones
and praise the God of science for that :-(

>Probably Stalin can tell us, he would have had the surviving balls pickled
>and sent back to the Kremlin for storage in his deskside cabinet.

Stalin was a motherson too. Hadn't he an incest-case ?!

>Hitler was reportedly very nice to his dog and cat though.

All had interesting relationships to Magda, Eva, Emmy and Carin.

But let us stop this untopic.
What it shows is only, that you can be a murderer and you can be
polite and nice and white-wested to you family or friends.

mclane

unread,

Mar 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/2/97

Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)

>Thorsten,

I have problems with arrogance. Sorry. But when I meet these people in
non-topic surrounding, (e.g. Tony Marsland at the breakfast) I have a
totally different feeling for them as when I am reading Van den Herik
in ICCA, reading Don Beal here in rgcc, and also this Jonathan
Schaeffer here in rgcc.

Maybe they are not used to speak NORMAL and relaxed and informal with
NORMAL people like us. Maybe they live somewhere in heaven or onto
some far away clouds.
When I see how they express, when I see how the act
( again bad examples are:
1.Van den Herik in munich 1993 in adjudications in the night doing
different jobs and in a very unfriendly way
2. Friedel in 1993 in munich in the Mchess-Spracklen game telling
Niggemann he should "CONTINUE" in a very unpleasant way.
3. Friedel in the game between Mchess and Genius where he made
advertising for ChessBase using the KEN THOMPSON ENDGAME DATABASES
behaving like an idiot because anybody SAW that it was technically
lost, and he had to call to hamburg to ASK chessBase team with
databases how many moves to the loss [it is the first time ever a
chessdatabase is used for adjudicating a game and idle stuff like that
- mainly pure advertising!]
4.Van den Herik in Paderborn (ask Peter Schreiner, he can tell you
more about it, because he operated Mchess in Paderborn 1995)
5.Tony Marsland quoting private email-stuff here in rgcc - not as a
private person , but as an official and in his job as an official of
the ICCA !!!
6. Don Beal in his unbelieable arogant mud throwing way here in rgcc
posts.
7. Jonathan Schaeffer here in rgcc.]

I really have the feeling they have lived the whole time into a
universe , kept secret against any visitors from outer space.

They talk here, as if we were living in 1800 and womans are not
allowed to elect, and people have no right to stand up and ASK for
reasons. They are not the landlords anymore. NOW ICCA is only a
subgroup of rgcc. In earlier days ICCA was the mother and all other
tournaments were the children. No it has changed.

In old days we had the roman empire. We had the forum, where important
persons out of the life had to debate about IMPORTANT stuff. And then
40 metres away we had the arena, were unpleasant criticist were food
for the lions. Romans were fed up with Bread and Circuses.
These few VIP's controlled the whole roman empire. The people worked,
the slaves did the dirty job, the owners of the slaves the clean jobs,
and the people in the forum decided about whole empire.

Chris would have thrown into this Outlaw-kill-machine to be breakfast
of some lions. And why ? Because he is not this kind of snob ?!
Because he was a worker , well - educated- with life experience, a
carpenter, used to work with hands, who married an intelligent german
girl, made children, build one day a company and one day sold strange
way playing chess programs, playing different because he is a
chess-player and could never program a USUAL program ?
They try to sho us that he is only lion-food, because HE is not
well-reputated, that he is a bad guy and violent (always I hear he was
involved in a FIGHT against a french guy!).

Sorry, but I know chris better then these guys. I know he is very
straight and clever, but he would never do this.
He is - indeed very intelligent.
He has humor. Has ideas. And is not worth throwing him into this
circus full of beasts.

On the other side we have the good ones. The ICCA. They do never
mistakes. They get no critics. Has anyone ever heard of mistakes ?
No these guy have best reputations. They walk over water and respond
any email. But suddenly, herre on rgcc I get strange posts from them,
get unbelievable impudent but always polite-languaged private-emails
where they do NOT talk with me in private, but they adress to me in
there function as ICCA-official.
They break rules they have put on their flags before (like Don
Beal:"This email is a personal response to your direct questions.

Generally accepted standards of behaviour are that it is not normally

appropriate to broadcast communications received privately." --->
Tony Marsland broadcast his email stuff to chris)
and they try to do dirty tricks to show: The source of the bad rumor
is a guy with no reputation.

It does not count if somebody is good or bad reputation. We don't live
in the middle-ages. MAYBE THEY STILL LIVE IN THESE FORMAL DAYS, but
time has gone. We have the end of the 20th century. Rome is not the
same empire it was.
Bread and circuses has gone. They are just one little part of a big
community.Their arrogance cannot survive anymore.
Their METHODS show me, they have not understood this yet.
They don't even SEE that they have made a mistake in posting here.
Any of their post was a total boomerang to me. We could kill them by
quoting their own words without any difficulty !

And now you ask me:

>Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

Yes I can. I don't want to see Tony Marsland nor David Levy or any
other guy (even Jaap van den Herik) retire nor apologize for anything
!

I am not that tempered guy. I do not send people emails where I write:

>"Now, I have to say something about the manner and tone of your
>email. (It was your first email to me personally!) It is
>unacceptable to me, and I consider you owe me a personal apology.

>I have consulted with the ICCA board about this.

>Because of the aggressive and insulting nature of your correspondence,
>the ICCA insists that all future communications from you to an ICCA
>official be sent with identifying signature and proper mailing
>address, and be sent through the postal mail in the normal way.

>Also, the ICCA is not prepared to engage in debate on purely political
>matters unrelated to computer chess activities by electronic or any
>other medium."

If I would send anybody such an email, I would instantly shame into
earth. This is a style I could use in a dictatorial system, maybe in
the Prussia of 1800 soandso !
If they are used to this kind of IMPOSANT and IMPRESSIVE style, they
should join the army or beat their wifes (VIOLENCE, MR. Schaeffer.
Violence wherever you look. But violence can have different faces. I
can be violent by beeing Jack the Ripper, and I can be violent the way
YOU do it. You do it polite. Of course you are unable to register
this. Aren't you always polite ? But it is useless to discuss this to
you. As you have shown us, you don't even understand an anology ! As
Don Fong told here before in some threads, it seems NOT violent to
organize a championship in Jakarta, but is is violent to critisize
this, also there is no way to criticize it, because it is OFF_TOPIC
because it has something to do with ethics and morality. And
computer-chess and ethics ? How can this come together now ? You doing
it for computerchess, as you get never tired to tell us, not for
politics. This is also OFF_TOPIC. Of course - anything is OFF-TOPIC
that is against you.) .

So - I want to apologize to all these people, because if they are
really so blind that they don't SEE or FEEL that they speak in
arrogance and tone like snobs, they are maybe really hurted by my
words. They are shocked about my violence. I wonder if these guys
could eat with their hands or if they would die like us , barried in a
small wooden coffin. Nono. They die in gold and eat caviar, how could
they ever make a mistake.

>Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

Yes. I would not ask them to apologize, nor ask anybody to retire.
This would be too much. For them. For us.

I would not wish that they give up. Maybe they should try to do it
more like us normal beeings. Sit an relax. Or like Bronstein shows it.
Or Seiravan. Sitting together with us, not apart.

Maybe the old days are really gone! If ICCA is not developing into a
younger organisation with giving AMATEURS more influence and not
always making VIP-stuff with the high-end-professionals, if they could
transpose their tone into a more modest way, they will die before they
have recognized it.

I am not the person to be asked about expectations concerning the
ICCA.
I have no ambitions in doing a this or that. Just because I was hurted
my whole life in my hobby-area by people , making business with values
and exploiding ideals of others.

I do not want to meet these people, nor do I want to going eat with
them.

I would say, lets smoke the peace pipes and stop attacking chris
whittington. Because one day it must end. I have heard enough of this
mud-throwing concerning him.
From the day I studied his program, to the day now, he has never
disapointed my expectations. And the level of expactations I have is
not easy to reach.
He has never behaved arrogant. Nor has Marty (or you Ed) behaved to
me this way. I hear these rumors always from people who have no
knowledge about computer-chess. But the ICCA shows this side of the
medall here and in other media ?!

I don't want them to say: we have made a mistake. This would be too
much for people who are used to be GODs.
I only want to stop them to broadcast: We do never any mistake. We are
all live like Jesus. We love critics. We respond to anybody. We do
never bann somebody nor spread rumors. We are having clean wests. We
are the infallible guys of the ICCA !

If they could surpress these statements. I could live with them.

Maybe they should consider to put - as Chris mentioned once, put on or
2 guys from all fields into their board.
Maybe 2 amateur-guys. Maybe 2 freaks. Maybe 2 commercial programmers.
Maybe 2 strong and in computerchess interested chess-players, maybe 2
computer-chess-distributors, maybe 2 university profs, maybe 2
computer-chess-collectors (these guys having collected any machine and
software and publication about computerchess), maybe 2 guys from each
tribe of us rgcc people
(please - not me !!!).

But Ed, I can tell you, if they say that would do this, they would not
take different people, they would take Jaap because he is a prof,
David because he is a distributor of computer-chess, David because he
is a stong chess-player, David because he is a commercial
chess-programmer (think of times of Cyrus Chess and Intelligent Chess)
,Tony because he is an amateur, Jonathan because he is freaky and Don
because he is collecting or something like that.

So if they would decide it, they would not show us 16 different
people, they would show us themselves, and each one with 3 or 4
labels:
I am a freak, I am also strong chess player, I represent amateurs and
I am a commercial chess programmer and also a distributor....

You could imagine what I mean.

There are topics to discuss. Criticism is not developed to demolish
ICCA. We want to refresh it. When crtiticism always is interpreted as
DESTROYING and violence, how could I ever have worked with programmers
on their programs AND MAKING programming progress ??????

If I would be a violent person, or a crazy one, why would Ed or Mark
or Chris or many others talk with me, or even work with me ?

Whatever. I am not interested in the attacks on me. What really makes
me angry over the years is the unbelievable way they handle chris.

I was sitting together with him behind his program, and when he stand
up and walked away to get a cup of coffee, computer-chess-VIP's (I
don't want to name here) circled around my desk and ask me, with one
hand at their mouth: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS PROGRAMMER HAD A REPUTATION
?

How should I explain that I shit on this, when I like somebody and
when I have found out that this guy has enormous potential in his
work. That there is a quality.

Look - it is not important if a chess-program is strong or if it has
won dozens of prizes. It is the effort and the topic that counts for
me. I would work with you and I would work with ananse. Because I
believe that he is doing the job with as much spirit and joy as YOU
do. And I know many many guys I would never trust and I would never
join my beloved hobby with.

But this elite-only-shares-time-with-elite thinking is unbelievable
intolerant.

One should not censorship a magazine, nor should one censorship a his
mind.

If I want to be in, I need ALL variations. Need Tueschen and Moritz
Berger and Peter Schreiner and all programmers and all chess-players
and all proffessors and all commercials and Dong Fongs and the family
of the programmers and the children of them and the old legends
(Botvinnik, Thomas Nitsche, Shannon, Spracklen [come back !!]) and
Cock de Gorters and Enriques and KK's and Rockfords like James Garners
and Science-legends Like Bill Newton or Bronstein or Polgars, Vincent
or Brigitta Cimmarollis and Frederic Friedels and Jan Louwmann and
Ossi Weiners and and and and not to forget one single guy or women.

We need a representor of each group, put them as ONE vote in a board,
and simsalabim, the ignorance that came out of incest will be away.

This dificult topic could be called democratize ICCA.

I don't want to be a member of this board.

What can we/they do now ? If you would ask me: I would forgive them,
and they should try to understand us.

(We have the sheriff of nottingham, guy guisberts, and we have the
sherwood forrest, where the outlaws like me live. )

I do like Tony Marsland, I guess. I like Don Beals uniform platform
stuff (somebody told me in a private email that he organises this - I
have never heard before) , and shared it in years before, when I met
Mark Uniacke. Let us try to be a family. But not with rich oncles and
well-educated oncles and misfit son's like me, and cousins of bad
reputation. A family should be ONE group. No one better than the
other. I don't want to here from Jaap that he made a mistake. I would
like to hear ANYTHING concerning the misadjudications. Not because I
want to tease anybody, but because I think it should be following
RULES and not following moods.

>- Ed Schroder -
>Another ICCA member

I hear you say that I was not exact enough. But I don't want to be
exact talking about people. I can be very exact concerning
chess-programs. Because they don't live.
But people. Exact is a term that does not fit to humans. Maybe to Data
or Spock (no Spock is also 1/2 part human), you understand.

The way it develops here, one will not be proud to be an icca member
in the future. The way it develops here is, that one will be ashamed
to be member of it.

It is the same way, the people change opinion about Computer-Schach &
Spiele. In the old day they were proud to be named in the Editorial,
and now they are ashamed to be named into the list.
(BTW: Peter [Schreiner] - you are still in the list ! Isn't it time to
ask Dieter for damage-compensation-money ?? Your whole reputation goes
over-board !! You lose your face !)

Sorry Ed, that may answer does not fullfill your expectations.
But: I would have never decided to take it place in Jakarta, and I
would not let it take place in china, nor turkey nor into any other
terror-country. And if they still think it was the best for ICCA, they
only show me, that my ideas about them are right.

Ed Schroder

unread,

Mar 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/2/97

From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)

[ snip ]

Uff...

: Sorry Ed, that may answer does not fullfill your expectations.

No your answer did not please me... :)

Perhaps I was not clear enough. In fact I was looking for an answer how
to solve the situation and your idea's how to do that.

I mean you said all what's on your mind and that was a lot of criticism
to the ICCA. But reading it I come to the conclusion that your main
criticism is how the ICCA have treated Chris. Right?

Well from what I know from you and Chris is that you are both open minded
and willing to forgive and forget. Right?

I don't know about the ICCA, in the meantime Tony, Don and Jonathan are
involved too in this discussion. I met all three in the past and found
them all sympathetic and I am sure they also are willing to make peace.
Right Tony, Don and Jonathan?

I am writing this because I fear a new explosion from both sides which
will hurt both sides even more since on a certain level you can be so
upset that you are only able to feel your own pain resulting in new
explosions, a dead end street.

I think it's time for peace, forgive and forget and for an open minded
discussion (forgetting about the past) how we all can help to improve
the ICCA. We all will have profit from that.

I have sent copies (by email) from this posting to Chris, Thorsten,
Jonathan, Don and Tony.

- Ed Schroder -

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/2/97

Correction:

TonyH and TH should be converted to TonyM and TM in my former post.

I think the two shouldn't be confounded. Sorry again.

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/2/97

Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Thorsten,

snip

>I have missed the solutions,
>the proposals or how things must be arranged better for the future.

>Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

>- Ed Schroder -
>Another ICCA member
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not being Th. nor an ICCA member may it be allowed to criticize the above last
sentence?

I read the whole stuff here and in other threads too.

So, demanding *tell me exactly* what you want from *the* ICCA seems a bit
broadly brushed. :)

-- There's the ICCA with all his members and staff and journal and events and
so on.

-- There's the famous staff of ICCA. President, treasurer and so on.

-- There's the private persons behind the official staff officials. Tony here
on the usenet, Jonathan here in rgcc and so on.

-- There're events like Jakarta.

-- There're discussions here on the net.

-- There're hidden decisions concerning politics/money/sponsors of ICCA staff.

-- There're privat email/ and other postal ships.

-- And there's an open/public debate in rgcc guided by *free speech* without
censorship.

Now please, we shouldn't constantly confound all these floors of debate/logic.
Here on the open/public net everybody can discuss and post his opinion to
everything he's interested in. We shouldn't confound opinions and posters.
A *member of ICCA* may say s.th. rather dull whereas an unknown anonymous may
point at the hottest centre of the whole stuff.

I humbly repeat, that nobody should confound reports and the reporter.
(Included mclane who likes sayings of that kind:* he's a motherson -- I don't
like him* --- :) or just *he's a snob*).

Let's better deal with public posted/sent/quoted/said/written stuff.

From this on I would like to see that

(1) The whole staff of ICCA retires or minimum apologizes :) for doing very bad
things concerning Jakarta, (Mass murder in East Timor and exclusion of at least
one team.)

(2) TonyH retires definetly because of posting two times in this rgcc in a way
that is not accepted for a *president*. TH came up cowardly two times with
requests of apology --- when in these two events the men having made their
mistakes already had apologized here publicly in rgcc!

(3) Treasurer JS retires immediatly for running amok here publicly and making
rather a clown of himself. This man shoudn't control the *whole money* of the
members of ICCA. Everyone can read TH and JS and prove the very nasty behavior
of the two.

(4) The vice president should retire or at least justify why *in the heck* he
thought that being a good step to share all his Jakarta mails with german FF.
And on the other hand NEVER sharing his thoughts with many of those people who
wrote here on the net and who warned about Jakarta for several reasons.
Note -- this email exchange is nomore private after being published by one of
the two actors!

(5) ICCA staff should prepare as a final gesture of farewell/goodwill a
democratic event that is able to build a new staff. Best date the next big
event IBM vs GK. But best prepared by democratic votings here on the net (and
normal postings airmailed) -- possible within DAYS.

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/3/97

Some annotations on an eternal conflict
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

...

>I have problems with arrogance. Sorry. But when I meet these people in
>non-topic surrounding, (e.g. Tony Marsland at the breakfast) I have a
>totally different feeling for them

Fear that seems to be a case of *Inferiority*-*Komplex* (ADLER). Because I
couldn't find *arrogance* in their rgcc postings. They reacted a bit like
stupid. Wrong and insuitable.

Once I read that they all shit the same shit as *we* do, now it seems that you
got corrupted by some totally normal, well learned, educated manors at
breakfast small talkers. Again this IK of ADLER. Because you feel that you are
not able to copy that favourable behavior. (See at some posts here on the net.)
But try it yourself. Put some oiling into your normal INPUT and you'll see how
good it works.

>Maybe they are not used to speak NORMAL and relaxed and informal with
>NORMAL people like us. Maybe they live somewhere in heaven or onto
>some far away clouds.

First, what is normal?

Second, I'll come back to this *analogy/picture* of somewhere later on. :)

>3. Friedel in the game between Mchess and Genius where he made
>advertising for ChessBase using the KEN THOMPSON ENDGAME DATABASES
>behaving like an idiot because anybody SAW that it was technically
>lost, and he had to call to hamburg to ASK chessBase team with
>databases how many moves to the loss

Seems to be a circle. If he did PR, then why do you call his behavior that of
an idiot? For me it seems to be very clever.

Look at these yearly television broadcasts of matches from Cologne. If you
listened to Hort for a while you certainly want to compare his *judgement* with
a *computer*. Oh, by chance we have Fritz sitting here. Now if you observed
exactly (!) that machine display you surely observed what I did. There is
always sort of new feature to be seen -- only visible for the experts -- which
automatically provokes sort of PAVLOV reflex that goes like this: hey, look at
this, interesting, I must have this at once ...
We call this simply PR. And very clever because no primitive mentioning of the
details was used.
And look at Hort with his unsuccessful tries to keep earnest while showing
demonstrated understatement. Did you observe how quick he always found out the
exact predecessor of the game? He surely doesn't need Crtl-C to compare in
ChessBase. But in hiding a bit his knowledge he's part of PR. No doubt about
it. And still that's very interesting to watch. When he strikes with few words
of a GM's verdict the foggy computer or Dr. Sp. trials.

>They talk here, as if we were living in 1800 and womans are not
>allowed to elect, and people have no right to stand up and ASK for
>reasons. They are not the landlords anymore. NOW ICCA is only a
>subgroup of rgcc.

All wrong pictures. Read BM who already detected that *they* had done their
business a very bad service by posting this bull here in rgcc. Bad PR I would
say. So perhaps contacting FF for Jakarta wasn't that bad at all me thinks. :)

>Chris would have thrown into this Outlaw-kill-machine to be breakfast
>of some lions. And why ? Because he is not this kind of snob ?!
>Because he was a worker , well - educated- with life experience, a
>carpenter, used to work with hands, who married an intelligent german
>girl, made children, build one day a company

Now would you please stop this? Don't sing that song of the better *worker*
again. Seems to be a new nobility order. I couldn't see any indication that
*they* could hurt CW with that bull. But I saw enough that could hurt *them*.

>They don't even SEE that they have made a mistake in posting here.

>We could kill them by

>quoting their own words without any difficulty !

Genauuuu. :)

>And now you ask me:

>>Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

>Yes I can. I don't want to see Tony Marsland nor David Levy or any
>other guy (even Jaap van den Herik) retire nor apologize for anything
>!

Eh, wait, eh, wait a moment, eh, ahhhhh, GHANDI.

>I am not that tempered guy.

---- :)))) ---------

>I would not ask them to apologize, nor ask anybody to retire.
>This would be too much. For them. For us.

>I would not wish that they give up. Maybe they should try to do it
>more like us normal beeings. Sit an relax.

No, Ghandi always had this stick in his hand and walked over the water, didn't
he? :)

>I am not the person to be asked about expectations concerning the
>ICCA.
>I have no ambitions in doing a this or that. Just because I was hurted
>my whole life in my hobby-area by people , making business with values
>and exploiding ideals of others.

>I do not want to meet these people, nor do I want to going eat with
>them.

Only some breakfast?

>I would say, lets smoke the peace pipes

Unbelievable. Strange logic. But never mind. Let's try the Ghandi.

>and stop attacking chris
>whittington. Because one day it must end. I have heard enough of this
>mud-throwing concerning him.

No, I didn't read anything that could hurt him. Please explain that.

>I only want to stop them to broadcast: We do never any mistake. We are
>all live like Jesus. We love critics. We respond to anybody. We do
>never bann somebody nor spread rumors. We are having clean wests. We
>are the infallible guys of the ICCA !

Where did you read that?

>Whatever. I am not interested in the attacks on me. What really makes
>me angry over the years is the unbelievable way they handle chris.

>I was sitting together with him behind his program, and when he stand
>up and walked away to get a cup of coffee, computer-chess-VIP's (I
>don't want to name here) circled around my desk and ask me, with one
>hand at their mouth: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS PROGRAMMER HAD A REPUTATION
>?

Now remember what you wrote above about living somewhere ....

Me thinks, you are dreaming of a world that you can't find in this reality. I
thank you for giving us this story and I adore you for tasting sour about it
but didn't you know all this before?

Did you never hear about intrigues, falsehood, betrayal, lies, eval, DAS BOESE
before?? Where were you living all those years? I humbly would recommand a more
long-ranged strategy to help you out of frustration and depression. Would help
you to write more relaxed too. :) Sorry.

>How should I explain that I shit on this, when I like somebody and
>when I have found out that this guy has enormous potential in his
>work. That there is a quality.

Ok. But one thought from my side:

Think about the last verse you've written above. What would you do if you
suddenly realized, oh, all that has NO QUALITY AT ALL?
Would you then shit with the rest of the mob?

Pay attention. One could read your statement in several forms. Again. I ask
you: What would you do if you see/judge that it's all bullshit?

My opinion to that: Independant of the *real* quality each human being has the
same rights of some *rights* that none could take him. So you see the argument
again comes close to Bob Hyatt's stupid remarks about death row. I'll always
fight his belief that at some points a human being should loose all his natural
born rights as man. Because for me this would be the beginning of a barbarian,
totalitarian and surely fascistic system.

>But this elite-only-shares-time-with-elite thinking is unbelievable
>intolerant.

If it workes it could help and saves a lot of time. But how difficult this
*elite* notion has become. Read about this bastard, noble prize winner for
medicine of 1976 Gajdusek. He's accused for having misused a lot of youngsters
he saved from their pacific islands and promoted for academical education. He
now accepted in a typical bargaining gamble being guilty of pedophily in *one*
case. He evates a possible trial for several dozens of similar cases. Read
about Bettelheim the famous scientist of children care.

It is as you wrote yourself. We have to look at the outcome, the output and not
at titles and boastings. Elite isn't bad in itself. But if real academic
scientists behave like TM and JS did here on rgcc, I would no longer give them
my confidence for jobs in ICCA. They lost their public good image.
But if members of ICCA thing on the contrary that only these guys are capable
to win further sponsors for the *community* they might think that other
qualifications of these men are more important than their ability to express
themselves in a democratic open usenet group.

>I do like Tony Marsland, I guess.

---

>Let us try to be a family. But not with rich oncles and
>well-educated oncles and misfit son's like me, and cousins of bad
>reputation.

Of what family you're dreaming of? This is pure phantasy. But dont forget to
inform me if you had found a model, please.

>I hear you say that I was not exact enough. But I don't want to be
>exact talking about people. I can be very exact concerning
>chess-programs. Because they don't live.
>But people. Exact is a term that does not fit to humans. Maybe to Data

Don't loose yourself in circles again. You'll give your weapons away. :)
Didn't you detect exactly the difference between me and Andrea?
So, come on and continue to fight those impossible posters from ICCA with your
sword. We haven't that many to take your place if you'll dissappear in the
forests again, Thorsten. You smoke too much peace pipes like an addict. :)

> I would have never decided to take it place in Jakarta,

>And if they still think it was the best for ICCA, they

>only show me, that my ideas about them are right.

- STOP - How - STOP - many - STOP - divisions? - STOP -

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/5/97

Here are my $0.02 on this subject, for the benefit of somebody I know...

ICCA is a computer chess organization. It publishes a journal and
organizes a few tournaments. Some of the things printed in the journal
look/sound funky when read in a certain way, and a few aspects of the
tournaments are undoubtably questionable. However, on an "accomplished vs.
not accomplished" basis, I would have to say that these two things are
certainly being accomplished. They could also be accomplished much worse,
so I'm fairly pleased with the organization.

Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
letters. If that didn't produce a change or clarification, he should have
run for office to try to fix things, or presented arguments at the next
officer election. Maybe he can set up a web site with a list of
grievances so other ICCA members can be "informed."

On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
back, take a deep breath, realize that the ICCA is probably an okay
organization with about as much corruption as (for example) your breakfast
cereal company, and go on talking about actual technical computer
chess stuff.

Cheers,
Tom

Jonathan Schaeffer

unread,

Mar 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/5/97

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

>(3) Treasurer JS retires immediatly for running amok here publicly and making
>rather a clown of himself. This man shoudn't control the *whole money* of the
>members of ICCA. Everyone can read TH and JS and prove the very nasty behavior
>of the two.

Please read the news more carefully. Don Beal is the ICCA Treasurer. He
has been in that position since 1992. During the past few weeks, he has
made a number of informative posts to this group concerning the ICCA finances.

As to your "running amok" and "clown" remarks, I think they better reflect
the original writer of those words rather than the intended recipient.

mclane

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

>Here are my $0.02 on this subject, for the benefit of somebody I know...

>ICCA is a computer chess organization. It publishes a journal and
>organizes a few tournaments. Some of the things printed in the journal
>look/sound funky when read in a certain way, and a few aspects of the
>tournaments are undoubtably questionable. However, on an "accomplished vs.
>not accomplished" basis, I would have to say that these two things are
>certainly being accomplished. They could also be accomplished much worse,
>so I'm fairly pleased with the organization.

>Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
>tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
>and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
>statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
>flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
>much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
>letters. If that didn't produce a change or clarification, he should have
>run for office to try to fix things, or presented arguments at the next
>officer election. Maybe he can set up a web site with a list of
>grievances so other ICCA members can be "informed."

No - this is rec.games.chess.computer. Here is the right place to ask
ICCA or to discuss about ICCA. The fact that it is public is no
problem.

>On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
>back, take a deep breath, realize that the ICCA is probably an okay
>organization with about as much corruption as (for example) your breakfast
>cereal company, and go on talking about actual technical computer
>chess stuff.

Thats true. But that is not changing system-immanent-problems that
will occur when the persons of the ICCA that did strange decisions
will again do it in later tournaments. YOu can relax here and forget
it, but you are the next candidate they will look for their
"decisions".

Because the boss is always right - you can pray before. But that is
all you can do.

Or you could post here before it happens to you.

>Cheers,
>Tom
Technical stuff is brilliant. But if the programs play is adjudicated
by PEOPLE than technical stuff is knocked out.

Chris Whittington

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote in article
<5fe4u3$t...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...

I've read this post three times now. Several incisive insights. I'm
impressed.

But 'How many divisions?' ???? Is this a reference to Napoloeon's comment
when told the pope didn't approve of his marching his armies around northen
Italy: 'how many divisions has the pope ?'; or is there some other meaning
? Or whose armies ? whose pope ?

Chris Whittington

>
>
>

Jouni Uski

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

Please Chris, don't include always hundreds lines
of previous messages! Aaarrgh!

Jouni

Chris Whittington

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

Jouni Uski <Jouni...@semitechturku.com> wrote in article
<331EB7...@semitechturku.com>...

> Please Chris, don't include always hundreds lines
> of previous messages! Aaarrgh!
>

Sorry. I never really know what to snip. And I quite like myself to see the
previous message when I read the next one.

OK, will try harder.

Chris Whittington

> Jouni
>

mclane

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

>Some annotations on an eternal conflict
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>...

>>I have problems with arrogance. Sorry. But when I meet these people in
>>non-topic surrounding, (e.g. Tony Marsland at the breakfast) I have a
>>totally different feeling for them

>Fear that seems to be a case of *Inferiority*-*Komplex* (ADLER). Because I
>couldn't find *arrogance* in their rgcc postings. They reacted a bit like
>stupid. Wrong and insuitable.

I have read enough Adler to understand him, Rolf. Especially when
thinking about Frederic I very often think about Adler and Ueber den
nervoesen Charakter.

Maybe we have different definitions about arrogance.

>Once I read that they all shit the same shit as *we* do, now it seems that you
>got corrupted by some totally normal, well learned, educated manors at
>breakfast small talkers. Again this IK of ADLER. Because you feel that you are
>not able to copy that favourable behavior. (See at some posts here on the net.)
>But try it yourself. Put some oiling into your normal INPUT and you'll see how
>good it works.

Ha ! I would be able to copy their arrogance. But why ?! We don't have
to be this arrogant or ignorant, we are right, they are wrong. We have
no problems with saying: we have made a mistake. We don't have
problems to lose. They have.

>>Maybe they are not used to speak NORMAL and relaxed and informal with
>>NORMAL people like us. Maybe they live somewhere in heaven or onto
>>some far away clouds.

>First, what is normal?

Us - normal human beeings. Able to make faults and to stand for it.
Able to regret. Able to calm down. Able to forget. Able to
differenciate and capable to have more than 2 categories (Friend -
Enenmy). Also we don't have to have any secrets. We don'T force our
opponents to apologize. We don't thread anybody. We ...

>Second, I'll come back to this *analogy/picture* of somewhere later on. :)

>>3. Friedel in the game between Mchess and Genius where he made
>>advertising for ChessBase using the KEN THOMPSON ENDGAME DATABASES
>>behaving like an idiot because anybody SAW that it was technically
>>lost, and he had to call to hamburg to ASK chessBase team with
>>databases how many moves to the loss

>Seems to be a circle. If he did PR, then why do you call his behavior that of
>an idiot? For me it seems to be very clever.

Something is only clever if nobody registeres it.
Also I don't see an advantage in seeing somebody MAKING PR.
When I am watching TV and suddenly and IDIOT comes and explains me PR
about some washing powder that washes whiter than ever, I just switch
the channel. The problem with friedel in munich was, that I had no
remote-control in my near surround. It was real. Brrrrrrrrrr.

>Look at these yearly television broadcasts of matches from Cologne. If you
>listened to Hort for a while you certainly want to compare his *judgement* with
>a *computer*. Oh, by chance we have Fritz sitting here. Now if you observed
>exactly (!) that machine display you surely observed what I did. There is
>always sort of new feature to be seen -- only visible for the experts -- which
>automatically provokes sort of PAVLOV reflex that goes like this: hey, look at
>this, interesting, I must have this at once ...
>We call this simply PR. And very clever because no primitive mentioning of the
>details was used.
>And look at Hort with his unsuccessful tries to keep earnest while showing
>demonstrated understatement. Did you observe how quick he always found out the
>exact predecessor of the game? He surely doesn't need Crtl-C to compare in
>ChessBase. But in hiding a bit his knowledge he's part of PR. No doubt about
>it. And still that's very interesting to watch. When he strikes with few words
>of a GM's verdict the foggy computer or Dr. Sp. trials.

Hort is ok. Them not. Sorry. On the videos about these fight I can
play the recorder forward if they appear. I can make the tone loud. Or
I let it without sound. But in reality .... this does not work.

>>They talk here, as if we were living in 1800 and womans are not
>>allowed to elect, and people have no right to stand up and ASK for
>>reasons. They are not the landlords anymore. NOW ICCA is only a
>>subgroup of rgcc.

>All wrong pictures. Read BM who already detected that *they* had done their
>business a very bad service by posting this bull here in rgcc. Bad PR I would
>say. So perhaps contacting FF for Jakarta wasn't that bad at all me thinks. :)

No - if one thing was brilliant, than how the outed themselves here
with postings. SO - in the end - we (including ED) have to thank you,
Rolf.

>>Chris would have thrown into this Outlaw-kill-machine to be breakfast
>>of some lions. And why ? Because he is not this kind of snob ?!
>>Because he was a worker , well - educated- with life experience, a
>>carpenter, used to work with hands, who married an intelligent german
>>girl, made children, build one day a company

>Now would you please stop this? Don't sing that song of the better *worker*
>again. Seems to be a new nobility order. I couldn't see any indication that
>*they* could hurt CW with that bull. But I saw enough that could hurt *them*.

But if it is true ?? Sorry, I am communist. I will always defend
workers. The reason is: I work the whole day.

Of course they were unable to hurt chris with that bullshit.

>>They don't even SEE that they have made a mistake in posting here.

>>We could kill them by
>>quoting their own words without any difficulty !

>Genauuuu. :)

>>And now you ask me:

>>>Can you tell me exactly what you want (expect) from the ICCA now?

>>Yes I can. I don't want to see Tony Marsland nor David Levy or any
>>other guy (even Jaap van den Herik) retire nor apologize for anything
>>!

>Eh, wait, eh, wait a moment, eh, ahhhhh, GHANDI.

Why should they apologize. They have not seen their mistake. How could
they apologize at all ?

>>I am not that tempered guy.

>---- :)))) ---------

>>I would not ask them to apologize, nor ask anybody to retire.
>>This would be too much. For them. For us.

>>I would not wish that they give up. Maybe they should try to do it
>>more like us normal beeings. Sit an relax.

>No, Ghandi always had this stick in his hand and walked over the water, didn't
>he? :)

Gandhi sit down and relaxed. We do it. They walk arround and behave
like kings. They behave like van den herik. Or like the others here in
the newsgroups. Meeting them in real is different (Good morning mr
Tony Marsland! Hallo Tony Marshall ! Hossa ! Ich bin Rex Gildo).

>>I am not the person to be asked about expectations concerning the
>>ICCA.
>>I have no ambitions in doing a this or that. Just because I was hurted
>>my whole life in my hobby-area by people , making business with values
>>and exploiding ideals of others.

>>I do not want to meet these people, nor do I want to going eat with
>>them.

>Only some breakfast?

I was shocked. Tired. Sitting and eating my bread, suddenly this guy
circles arround saying: good morning. Is this seat reserved of
something like this. Should I lie?

>>I would say, lets smoke the peace pipes

>Unbelievable. Strange logic. But never mind. Let's try the Ghandi.

I am not trying a Ghandi. I like Burt Lancaster more. Or Spencer
Tracy. Or Goetz George.

>>and stop attacking chris
>>whittington. Because one day it must end. I have heard enough of this
>>mud-throwing concerning him.

>No, I didn't read anything that could hurt him. Please explain that.

They try. Bur it does not work. Right.

>>I only want to stop them to broadcast: We do never any mistake. We are
>>all live like Jesus. We love critics. We respond to anybody. We do
>>never bann somebody nor spread rumors. We are having clean wests. We
>>are the infallible guys of the ICCA !

>Where did you read that?

This is a sum up. They don't say it in exact these words. But they say
it in their polite terms, telling us about reputation of van den Herik
and this stuff.

>>Whatever. I am not interested in the attacks on me. What really makes
>>me angry over the years is the unbelievable way they handle chris.

>>I was sitting together with him behind his program, and when he stand
>>up and walked away to get a cup of coffee, computer-chess-VIP's (I
>>don't want to name here) circled around my desk and ask me, with one
>>hand at their mouth: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS PROGRAMMER HAD A REPUTATION
>>?

>Now remember what you wrote above about living somewhere ....

>Me thinks, you are dreaming of a world that you can't find in this reality. I
>thank you for giving us this story and I adore you for tasting sour about it
>but didn't you know all this before?

>Did you never hear about intrigues, falsehood, betrayal, lies, eval, DAS BOESE
>before?? Where were you living all those years? I humbly would recommand a more
>long-ranged strategy to help you out of frustration and depression. Would help
>you to write more relaxed too. :) Sorry.

In MY world these lack of selfconsciousness is not happening. My
friends do not do this. One reason to stop writing in Computerschach
and Spiele was the lack of character many people who do write into
this magazine have. E.g. if they have bad emotions on Jens
Schmidt-Wilke.

>>How should I explain that I shit on this, when I like somebody and
>>when I have found out that this guy has enormous potential in his
>>work. That there is a quality.

>Ok. But one thought from my side:

>Think about the last verse you've written above. What would you do if you
>suddenly realized, oh, all that has NO QUALITY AT ALL?
>Would you then shit with the rest of the mob?

No - when I find out (and I have with Computerschach and Spiele) it is
not worthful to write there, because they are shallow and publish
roughly about quantity instead of quality, I cannot write or shit with
them anymore. That was the reason I was so disapointed when I saw the
austrians again work with Steinwender/Friedel. In my opinion the
austrians are more educated and more worthful than these guys. So :
why did they wrote in Computerschach and Spiele ?

>Pay attention. One could read your statement in several forms. Again. I ask
>you: What would you do if you see/judge that it's all bullshit?

Go away. Leave them in their shit.

>My opinion to that: Independant of the *real* quality each human being has the
>same rights of some *rights* that none could take him.

Right.
But I have the right to go !!

>So you see the argument
>again comes close to Bob Hyatt's stupid remarks about death row. I'll always
>fight his belief that at some points a human being should loose all his natural
>born rights as man. Because for me this would be the beginning of a barbarian,
>totalitarian and surely fascistic system.

Has he said this, really ? How nasty. Hm. These americans. They still
kill people as a punishment. They are not civilized enough, I guess.
I would not kill hitler. Anybody has rights. Also him. Or Honecker.

>>But this elite-only-shares-time-with-elite thinking is unbelievable
>>intolerant.

>If it workes it could help and saves a lot of time. But how difficult this
>*elite* notion has become. Read about this bastard, noble prize winner for
>medicine of 1976 Gajdusek. He's accused for having misused a lot of youngsters
>he saved from their pacific islands and promoted for academical education. He
>now accepted in a typical bargaining gamble being guilty of pedophily in *one*
>case. He evates a possible trial for several dozens of similar cases. Read
>about Bettelheim the famous scientist of children care.

Again- I have told in posts before: misuse of children is often done
by academic people. You give another example here.

>It is as you wrote yourself. We have to look at the outcome, the output and not
>at titles and boastings. Elite isn't bad in itself. But if real academic
>scientists behave like TM and JS did here on rgcc, I would no longer give them
>my confidence for jobs in ICCA. They lost their public good image.

But they are still human beeings.

>But if members of ICCA thing on the contrary that only these guys are capable
>to win further sponsors for the *community* they might think that other
>qualifications of these men are more important than their ability to express
>themselves in a democratic open usenet group.

I think they have shown themselves that other qualifications is more
important than what they have shown us here.

>>I do like Tony Marsland, I guess.

>---

>>Let us try to be a family. But not with rich oncles and
>>well-educated oncles and misfit son's like me, and cousins of bad
>>reputation.

>Of what family you're dreaming of? This is pure phantasy. But dont forget to
>inform me if you had found a model, please.

Really. What a pity for you. I have seen different families. Maybe
yours was ill.

>>I hear you say that I was not exact enough. But I don't want to be
>>exact talking about people. I can be very exact concerning
>>chess-programs. Because they don't live.
>>But people. Exact is a term that does not fit to humans. Maybe to Data

>Don't loose yourself in circles again. You'll give your weapons away. :)

I don't want to have weapons. Repetition is not bad. Read poems. There
is always a refrain.

>Didn't you detect exactly the difference between me and Andrea?
>So, come on and continue to fight those impossible posters from ICCA with your
>sword.

This is not my destination. I am a pazifist. I don't have a sword.
Only a pencil.

>We haven't that many to take your place if you'll dissappear in the
>forests again, Thorsten. You smoke too much peace pipes like an addict. :)

No. I want to sit an relax. In the forrest we do this very often.
Chris and I do very often sit an relax and join life.

>> I would have never decided to take it place in Jakarta,

>>And if they still think it was the best for ICCA, they
>>only show me, that my ideas about them are right.

>- STOP - How - STOP - many - STOP - divisions? - STOP -

Aha.

Michael F Jorgensen

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

Doesn't this thread belong in the rec.games.chess.politics newsgroup?

-Michael.

WWW: http://fermi.phys.ualberta.ca/~mjorg/

Dept. of Phys., U of Alberta | TODAY is the
Edmonton, AB T6G 2J1, Canada | BEST DAY
e-mail: mj...@phys.ualberta.ca | of the WEEK

mclane

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

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

>>(3) Treasurer JS retires immediatly for running amok here publicly and making
>>rather a clown of himself. This man shoudn't control the *whole money* of the
>>members of ICCA. Everyone can read TH and JS and prove the very nasty behavior
>>of the two.

>Please read the news more carefully. Don Beal is the ICCA Treasurer. He
>has been in that position since 1992. During the past few weeks, he has
>made a number of informative posts to this group concerning the ICCA finances.

Very "informative".

>As to your "running amok" and "clown" remarks, I think they better reflect
>the original writer of those words rather than the intended recipient.

Dito !!

Moritz Berger

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:17:57 GMT, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
<snip>

>No. I want to sit an relax. In the forrest we do this very often.
>Chris and I do very often sit an relax and join life.

<snip>

Instead of releasing CST? Or do you both have a notebook there, maybe
with nullmodem cable and autoplayer ... Or maybe Chris catches rats
and feeds them to you, maybe this is the 'joining life' part. But
before he would have to light a fire and cook them for hours and hours
... English cuisine a la Whittington ... I can almost smell it here!
Ratshire pudding ... ;-))))

Sorry, I know that this ICCA topic is serious for you, but I just
couldn't resist. I hope that the rat cooking part will not further
damage Chris' reputation with some ICCA officials ...

Moritz

-------------
Moritz...@msn.com

Chris Whittington

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

Moritz Berger <Moritz...@msn.com> wrote in article
<33210e3c...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>...

> On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:17:57 GMT, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
> <snip>

> >No. I want to sit an relax. In the forrest we do this very often.
> >Chris and I do very often sit an relax and join life.

> <snip>
>
> Instead of releasing CST? Or do you both have a notebook there, maybe
> with nullmodem cable and autoplayer ... Or maybe Chris catches rats
> and feeds them to you, maybe this is the 'joining life' part. But
> before he would have to light a fire and cook them for hours and hours
> ... English cuisine a la Whittington ... I can almost smell it here!
> Ratshire pudding ... ;-))))
>
> Sorry, I know that this ICCA topic is serious for you, but I just
> couldn't resist. I hope that the rat cooking part will not further
> damage Chris' reputation with some ICCA officials ...

Stewed rat has got to better than the dreadful currywurst, no ?

Ah, sorry, I forgot, stewed rat is currywurst :)

No, me and Thorsten discuss meaningful topics in the forest. Last debate
was about substituting the rat and stewing the icca officials, I reckoned
it would go down well on the bratwurst stands, but Thorsten couldn't
stomach the idea :)

Whoops, there goes my reputation again.

Chris Whittington

>
> Moritz
>
> -------------
> Moritz...@msn.com
>

brucemo

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

Michael F Jorgensen wrote:
>
> Doesn't this thread belong in the rec.games.chess.politics newsgroup?
>
> -Michael.

Good question. It's not really "chess politics" though, its "computer chess
politics". I think it would be hilarious if we had to make a new newsgroup:
"rec.games.chess.computer.politics", but perhaps this is what we will end up
doing.

That would work for me, since I simply wouldn't read it. If it's in here,
though, I see it, and often I can't resist responding.

I'm optimistic that this will all blow over soon, though.

bruce

Moritz Berger

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 12:02:57 GMT, "Chris Whittington"
<chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
< SNIP >

Chris, that was 292 lines of text, approx. 10 from you.

Is this really necessary ??? You not only cook your meals at length,
your messages are just as globberish.

Also, I don't always want to hear about the Krauts. How about the
Yanks? Or do you leave this correspondentship to Thorsten ...

BTW: I suspect that KK is also Kerman ... Just look at his
half-hearted attempts to be funny about the topic ...

Moritz

-------------
Moritz...@msn.com

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

>>Here are my $0.02 on this subject,

Just an american saying or that cheap?

>> for the benefit of somebody I know...

>>ICCA is a computer chess organization. It publishes a journal and
>>organizes a few tournaments. Some of the things printed in the journal
>>look/sound funky when read in a certain way, and a few aspects of the
>>tournaments are undoubtably questionable. However, on an "accomplished vs.
>>not accomplished" basis, I would have to say that these two things are
>>certainly being accomplished. They could also be accomplished much worse,
>>so I'm fairly pleased with the organization.

>>Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
>>tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
>>and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
>>statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
>>flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
>>much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
>>letters.

That's the most carnevalistic opinion I read since the challenge of Kasparov
by our german hirn operator.
But after two weeks one might be allowed to reverse the whole thing CW wrote
about. For our younger readers therefore: CW exactly criticized the habitude of
ICCA NOT to answer his mails. Yes, perhaps he should have written many more
letters to them. :)

>> If that didn't produce a change or clarification, he should have
>>run for office to try to fix things, or presented arguments at the next
>>officer election. Maybe he can set up a web site with a list of
>>grievances so other ICCA members can be "informed."

>No - this is rec.games.chess.computer. Here is the right place to ask

>ICCA or to discuss about ICCA. The fact that it is public is no
>problem.

Yes, and I can't see why this forum doesn't fit such press about ICCA. This TK
really must have taken some german overdosis of bureaucratic ingredients. :)
What will develop out of this in the future?

>>On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
>>back, take a deep breath,

Oh, mein Herrgott. Even worse, we've killed ourselves. We are no longer able to
breath. :)
Hating. Ridiculous.
Open debate. Should be forbidden.
Posting. Argghh. Pornographic and beyond any real human's good taste.
Let's become technicall. Let's do the stob. Eh, sorry, correction, not Bopp.

>> realize that the ICCA is probably an okay
>>organization

snipped/ file corrupted

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/6/97

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

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

>Please read the news more carefully. Don Beal is the ICCA Treasurer.

snip

>As to your "running amok" and "clown" remarks, I think they better reflect
>the original writer of those words rather than the intended recipient.

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

Correction about mistaking JS for DB. As already corrected TH to TM.

Sorry, that were typos. Not reading errors.

I'm happy to comment on *amok/clown*.

Sometimes it seems to me people and officials of ICCA primarily do take these
written lines in our posts as sort of *best of* compilation. But, if I wrote
about this topic, I always refered to a prior material. I don't know any of the
persons involved. Couldn't this to be judged as stupid entering s.th. one
doesn't understand?
I don't think so. This medium is in some respects different from *real* life.
If I react on a *JS* writing *against* a *CW*, and if further more I cannot see
anything but rude attacks without substantial material given, then I don't want
to be criticized for being somewhat ignorant for not knowing the long list of
JS's r e a l inducements in ICCA and computerchess. *I* did never doubt the
real honour of the real JS.

What I did was to criticize a post coming from JS as such. But according to the
sign below I already could *see* that there must have been some *differences*
between the apparently superfluous writing of the post and the possible quality
of the above mentioned writer in reality.

But that was my point. I found this jumping into the ring like a madman (seen
from the outside) as not fittting a professional prof of a canadian unuversity.
Read your first intervention and you'll possibly understand my main idea.
Writing this idea was simply an usual acting here in this usenet. Nothing
spectacular. No insult. No denying of the honour of the real JS.

Please try to differentiate that. In your reaction above you seem again to have
confounded my verdict about this very first post to CW and my judgement about
the real JS.

I'd like to repeat, this real honourable JS is out of every critics from my
side because I don't know him! Although JS is part of the ICCA staff and as
such official responsible for Jakarta which I found was wrongly chosen.

But even this would never lead to judgements about the real JS as human being.

Because you seem to have some difficulties to seperate all this, I'd like to
confirm you personally that I never intended to hurt you personally.
But *this* *post* remains *stupid* and so on. :)

I wrote this seperation diffic. because I already speculated here in a post to
rgcc about the inprobability that a *real* prof shouldn't know about the
logical traps CW mentioned once. And if he's prof of informatic this is even
more not the case. Didn't you read that?

My idea now is as follows: think you are at a party. You go to the WC. After
your return you hear half sentence and comments about you. Would you also jump
into the middle and react like this ... or do you usually contact your wife
about the whole affair before? I would preferablly do that.

Hope my english didn't confuse further.

Regards

Rolf Tueschen

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/7/97

mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:

> No - this is rec.games.chess.computer. Here is the right place to ask
> ICCA or to discuss about ICCA. The fact that it is public is no
> problem.

Wrong. You want to talk to the ICCA, you write them or get them on the
horn. I seriously doubt it's in their mission statement to keep up on this
newsgroup. As for being public, it is a problem, or at least it is here.
Notice that the entire issue has blown up such that it's vying for first
place in the R.G.C.C List O' Bummers.

> Thats true. But that is not changing system-immanent-problems that
> will occur when the persons of the ICCA that did strange decisions

Oh, and this quasi-flame fest is fixing things?

Notice that I don't advocate sitting on your butt. In fact, I suggested a
few ways to go about fixing things.

Cheers,
Tom

Andrea Tueschen

unread,

Mar 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/7/97

mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

....

Because we had a very good communication I snip all that. But I still have one
last idea:

You wrote:

>No - when I find out (and I have with Computerschach and Spiele) it is
>not worthful to write there, because they are shallow and publish
>roughly about quantity instead of quality, I cannot write or shit with
>them anymore. That was the reason I was so disapointed when I saw the
>austrians again work with Steinwender/Friedel. In my opinion the
>austrians are more educated and more worthful than these guys. So :
>why did they wrote in Computerschach and Spiele ?

This is nomore the initial ICCA topic but let me say this which could also be
taken into the other topics.

It's not a new detection that our chess (computer) community is very small. In
these small groups you simply cannot deal with the makro-world social rules you
possibly learned aboiut society and so on.

We have to work with a very small group. Which developped by
accident/time/nature as in families, you're right.

Now, think of these typical anniversary events when the rich uncle or the nasty
guy come to visit you. You still have s.th. in common with them, no?

Now, please try to use these insights for a new deal with all the different
subgroups of our *small* community. ICCA and CSS too.

I'll garantee you that if only you stay firm to your convictions -- chess
specifical -- work with all of them. That's all you can do. I know you don't
test and work on chess/prgs NOT because you primarily want to publish in CSS,
no? Today, you have other fields, the usenet at first.
You can do no more than stay firm to your level of quality. Each *seeing* eye
will admire you for this. But if you try to change all personalities of these
rich or nasty uncles of our *small* (!!) community you'll hurt your own
dedicated interests in the end.

The smaller a group is the less possibilities remain of replacing someone for
each and every error done.

Look, if you'll have the rest of the whole profiting Jakarta participents
against you, because they all enjoyed this marvelous exotic trip ---- what will
you do about/against it? I always read, you're a communist. I always thought
that one of the main thoughts of that conviction is the priority of the stomach
before/over the spirit, or that e.g. an emty stomach doesn't like to study ...
:)

What will you do against this? Look at the silent part of the programmers. Read
what TCK and BM wrote about the *good* work ICCA did for them with *their*
tournaments.

Read my own old post about this man in a chess club who always left the yearly
session when there came up some *quests* about his work. He flew the room with
red head. After a while they brought him back. And he did the same
unrenouncable good work in his longtime good work for the club's youngsters.
Although --- as a character -- so to speak --- he lost his public good image.
But what did it matter? The others in the club -- not at all well educated
experts -- almost by instinct understood very well the advantage all had by
looking *through* these (unimportant) personal qualities of this man. Because
none wanted to replace him each weekend when he conducted the youth teams in
the countryside for hours and hours. (Hey, maybe here is to be found a possible
reason for the not so seldom to be observed child misuse ... Because a criminal
driven by his inclination/addiction could make himself unreplacable simply by
his time consuming input. How could you differentiate in the beginning.)

You always stress your pacifistic conviction. Ok. One last circle. If you
battle with your pencil and words _the way you used to do_ you are not a
pacifist, no? Also here on the net there are still many tools to fight and
*kill* a man. Sometimes you too were part of. You too know the button to push
to make someone react automatically without further reflection, no? Therefore I
asked at the end of my former post for your plans with ICCA.

My opinion is as follows. ICCA officials/nearbys as TM, DL and JS have lost
their good image to be no longer officially acceptable in the staff of ICCA.
Reason: Jakarta and their public reaction here.

But I must admit, I don't know what are the real honors of these guys in the
past -- they seem to be known for a lot of justified fame -- and I don't know
of any alternatives. That's all not my business. But most of those who could
give more insight kept quiete here the last months. Remember that! So, even in
a democratic election you wouldn't achieve a change. Therefore perhaps BH was
right in his posted statement. And he is an institution, no?!

Only time will tell us more.

PS We both use english very roughly. When I wrote *I adore you for ...* in my
last post this should better read *I admire*, ok? Or is this the same? :)

mclane

unread,

Mar 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/8/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:

>> No - this is rec.games.chess.computer. Here is the right place to ask
>> ICCA or to discuss about ICCA. The fact that it is public is no
>> problem.

>Wrong. You want to talk to the ICCA, you write them or get them on the
>horn. I seriously doubt it's in their mission statement to keep up on this
>newsgroup. As for being public, it is a problem, or at least it is here.
>Notice that the entire issue has blown up such that it's vying for first
>place in the R.G.C.C List O' Bummers.

No. I am not the only one who asks questions that are nor answered.
They have still not answered to my questions:
why van den herik did these strange behaviour and adjudications.

I HAVE WRITTEN TO THEM. THEY HAVE NEVER ANSWERED.
I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO DID THIS: ALSO THIS BEHAVIOUR OF NOT
ANSWERING IS COMMON SENSE, ALSO COMPUTER SCHACH AND SPIELE IS NOT
ANSWERING TO PEOPLE THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER:

this is called censorship by selection of reader-letters.

>> Thats true. But that is not changing system-immanent-problems that
>> will occur when the persons of the ICCA that did strange decisions

>Oh, and this quasi-flame fest is fixing things?

No - but it is not hiding things under carpet.
If they will try to keep nasty questions with not asnwer to person or
question, THAN WE / I WILL ASK HERE.
Flaming is something else. Maybe you have different opinon about
democracy. For me - a democracy has nothing to do with harmony.
It is an argument. As we say in german: ein Streit.
Man streitet um die Argumente und einigt sich.
One fights with words to find an agreement.
Harmony is something for katholic women drinking tea after church.
But I am not catholic. We are allowed to discuss about things. We
don't have dogma or tabu-zones in our democracy.
Of course many of our latest politicians try to copy american way by
not discussing about imoportant stuff. Also magazines or ICCA tries.
But this is no way out.

>Notice that I don't advocate sitting on your butt. In fact, I suggested a
>few ways to go about fixing things.

I believe you. I don't see your statements as critics on me. I like
your comments.

But I am the opinon that TELLING ME THAT VAN DEN HERIK IS A WELL
REPUTATED MAN will not give me satisfacting answer to the question why
he did what he did. This is not an answer, this is a joke. He could be
Albert Schweitzer or Mother Theresia and I would also ask:
why did you do this.

OF COURSE I HAVE ASKED THE ICCA GUYS IN PRIVATE EMAILS ABOUT THIS
STUFF. OF COURSE THEY HAVE NOT ANSWERED IT.

THEREFORE I WILL DO IT IN PUBLIC.

The lie is, that they try to show here:
a) that we/I have never asked. Indeed we are STILL asking them by
private email.

b) that thy have not given us any NORMAL answer, instead they told us
about van den Heriks reputation.

c) they try to convince anybody here, that Chris or I or anybody else
has PRIVATE VENDETTAS with him.
But this is not true. And again: Chris and I are not the only guys who
had problems with him.

Why not discussing this problem ???
Why not saying : Mclane, show us examples and we will give you answer
Or maybe in a private email say: we have discusses this and came to
the conclusion that doing this was maybe a mistake or it was not his
best day or whatever. BUT THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZING IT. OR THEY ARE NOT
WILLING TO RECOGNIZE IT. OR THEY WANT TO CONVINCE rgcc READERS THAT WE
ARE STARTING A FLAMING ACTION:
But why should we? The only fact why we did it is: there were these
strange acts in the past and we did not like it.
We have withnesses for that . The scenes happened. And they were not
good for his reputation. In fact that showed more nasty behaviour. And
I cannot see any advantage for computerchess in actions where
people/participants were attacked with arrogance or threads or
personal insults.

In my opinion this is not the job of an ICCA official to attack or
handle guests or participants or amateurs.

>Cheers,
>Tom

brucemo

unread,

Mar 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/8/97

Jean-Peter Fendrich wrote:
>
> One line of action is to give the reply above the rest instead of after.
> Then one don't have to snip too much and it's possible to dig downwards
> in the message for more information.
> Within the company I work for we have used a mail system for 15 years or
> so on a broad front. Gradually a kind of de facto standard has been
> established to do this and I think it's working really well.
> ---
> J-P Fendrich

Yes, but it is not a de-facto standard here, and when people mix the two
styles, problems happen, see what I mean?

bruce

Robert Hyatt

unread,

Mar 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/8/97

brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Jean-Peter Fendrich wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Sorry. I never really know what to snip. And I quite like myself to see the

: > > previous message when I read the next one.
: > >
: > > OK, will try harder.
: > >
: > > Chris Whittington

: Yes, but it is not a de-facto standard here, and when people mix the two
: styles, problems happen, see what I mean?

: bruce

And there's the danger that if you snip too much, you uncork yet another
flame war about "you said that"...."no I didn't"...."yes you did"... "No
I didn't, you snipped incorrectly"... "No I didn't"...

Interesting study to see whether snipping reduces traffic or if it actually
increases it. :)

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/8/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:

>> No - this is rec.games.chess.computer. Here is the right place to ask
>> ICCA or to discuss about ICCA. The fact that it is public is no
>> problem.

>> Thats true. But that is not changing system-immanent-problems that

>> will occur when the persons of the ICCA that did strange decisions

>Oh, and this quasi-flame fest is fixing things?

---
No, one never knows, but making the whole public could clarify at least *some*
*questions*.

But this making it public *you* wanted to end/prevent/...

Sure, a guy who enjoyed Jakarta and the beer (!) down there, what could he have
done else?
Ok, there were many more of your collegues but they at least keep their mouth
shut. They took the money and ran. But you and BM now became a bit too
audacious. Understood?
If not, please inform me, I'm ready to explain to you, what you might have done
wrong. It's a question of moral in computer chess. You see, quit on topic!

>Notice that I don't advocate sitting on your butt. In fact, I suggested a
>few ways to go about fixing things.

Why fix things with these people? You still think they could continue as
before? Wrong again. Look, you could do me a great favour. This time perhaps
you find words to answer? When the ICCA has the next sessions? Elections? That
could be interesting.

>Cheers,
>Tom

Jean-Peter Fendrich

unread,

Mar 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/9/97

Got your point and thats why I like the de facto standard when it's
a de facto standard, see what I mean?
Let's continue in this way to see how long people will follow ... :)

--
J-P Fendrich

brucemo wrote:
>
> Jean-Peter Fendrich wrote:
> >
> > One line of action is to give the reply above the rest instead of after.
> > Then one don't have to snip too much and it's possible to dig downwards
> > in the message for more information.
> > Within the company I work for we have used a mail system for 15 years or
> > so on a broad front. Gradually a kind of de facto standard has been
> > established to do this and I think it's working really well.
> > ---
> > J-P Fendrich
> >
> > Chris Whittington wrote:
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
> > >
> > > Jouni Uski <Jouni...@semitechturku.com> wrote in article
> > > <331EB7...@semitechturku.com>...
> > > > Please Chris, don't include always hundreds lines
> > > > of previous messages! Aaarrgh!
> > > >
> > >

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

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

> >> Thats true. But that is not changing system-immanent-problems that
> >> will occur when the persons of the ICCA that did strange decisions
> >Oh, and this quasi-flame fest is fixing things?

> No, one never knows, but making the whole public could clarify at least *some*
> *questions*.

Well, I know, and it isn't.

> Sure, a guy who enjoyed Jakarta and the beer (!) down there, what could he have
> done else?
> Ok, there were many more of your collegues but they at least keep their mouth
> shut. They took the money and ran. But you and BM now became a bit too
> audacious. Understood?

No. BTW, I wasn't at Jakarta.

> >Notice that I don't advocate sitting on your butt. In fact, I suggested a
> >few ways to go about fixing things.
> Why fix things with these people? You still think they could continue as
> before? Wrong again. Look, you could do me a great favour. This time perhaps
> you find words to answer? When the ICCA has the next sessions? Elections? That
> could be interesting.

I'm pro-ICCA, but I never said they are infallible. It's not my job or my
wish to excuse things they've done, whatever they are.

Cheers,
Tom

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/12/97

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

> >>Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
> >>tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
> >>and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
> >>statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
> >>flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
> >>much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
> >>letters.
> That's the most carnevalistic opinion I read since the challenge of Kasparov
> by our german hirn operator.
> But after two weeks one might be allowed to reverse the whole thing CW wrote
> about. For our younger readers therefore: CW exactly criticized the habitude of
> ICCA NOT to answer his mails. Yes, perhaps he should have written many more
> letters to them. :)

I was explaining the process. I didn't say he should write _more_ letters
to them. It takes a person of your mental calibre to come up with that.

> >>On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
> >>back, take a deep breath,

> Open debate. Should be forbidden.
> Posting. Argghh. Pornographic and beyond any real human's good taste.
> Let's become technicall. Let's do the stob. Eh, sorry, correction, not Bopp.

I love open debate. People posting bullshit is not open debate. Case in
point.

Cheers,
Tom

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

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

>> >>Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
>> >>tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
>> >>and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
>> >>statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
>> >>flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
>> >>much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
>> >>letters.
>> That's the most carnevalistic opinion I read since the challenge of Kasparov
>> by our german hirn operator.
>> But after two weeks one might be allowed to reverse the whole thing CW wrote
>> about. For our younger readers therefore: CW exactly criticized the habitude of
>> ICCA NOT to answer his mails. Yes, perhaps he should have written many more
>> letters to them. :)

>I was explaining the process. I didn't say he should write _more_ letters
>to them. It takes a person of your mental calibre to come up with that.

Maybe I went wrong with your hint because I always understood CW's protest
deriving from the FACT he DID already write *a lot* to them.
Not one time. Many times.
Not the last year only. But for many years the same happening.
If you take this point of view you simply couldn't give advice to *first write
letters.*

And another one. If maybe CW was too overimpulsive in his judgement? Let's
assume this for a second ...

Then we simply look at these horrible postings by ICCA nearbys.
What reason should they have to react like amokers against CW if they were
completely out of every justified critics. Even you didn't exclude the
possibility CW maybe was damned right, no?

>> >>On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
>> >>back, take a deep breath,
>> Open debate. Should be forbidden.
>> Posting. Argghh. Pornographic and beyond any real human's good taste.
>> Let's become technicall. Let's do the stob. Eh, sorry, correction, not Bopp.

>I love open debate. People posting bullshit is not open debate. Case in
>point.

>Cheers,
>Tom

Don't be angry so quickly. You've no reason for. :)

It's all a question of being *appropiate*.

I simply wanted to make clear in public that time hadn't come yet to take both
*sides* as equal and even further to spell *we* as if we were all together.
This is misleading bargaining at the wrong moment.

For me (IMHO) the first claim of CW still stands firmly:

They answered not wanting to answer. And IMHO they should have answered CW.
And they revealed (intentionally??) that CW was one of the very few of the
programmers (BH wrote about his telephone calls, ok, but the rest in Jakarta
drank beer, right?!) who faught for the Israelians. Now, you're still very
young, and you must smell the arrogance of TM's answer he published himself,
no? CW was politically very clever wheras for TM it will cost him his head as
president of iCCA, for that I'm damned sure.

Perhaps you saw this in the end and therefore felt a bit frustrated and
therefore were so short in your comments. Maybe you got some emails that told
you how premature your idea of relaxing was in fact. :)

In politics you shouldn't relax too early.

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/13/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

>I'm pro-ICCA, but I never said they are infallible. It's not my job or my
>wish to excuse things they've done, whatever they are.

>Cheers,
>Tom
---------------------------------------------

Ok, but you're not that neutral, aren't you? You never commented on the bad
posts of TM and JS. That was horrible stuff considering usenet ettiquette.

And I openly correct for taken you wtrongly as a member of the tour in Jakarta.
Not with Stobor but as an operator of crafty. I always memorized a *Tom* over
there who communicvated with Bob. Sorry about that. If I were a bit more in
this I surely would have known that you as programmer couldn't operate crafty
because you would have preferred to do you own thing. But back in last autumn I
never heard of stobor... Sorry. Now I'll wait for a post that even the name
wasn't Tom at all. Oh boy, the whole almost 5000 pages are mountain-like. :)

brucemo

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

> They answered not wanting to answer. And IMHO they should have answered CW.
> And they revealed (intentionally??) that CW was one of the very few of the
> programmers (BH wrote about his telephone calls, ok, but the rest in Jakarta
> drank beer, right?!) who faught for the Israelians. Now, you're still very
> young, and you must smell the arrogance of TM's answer he published himself,
> no? CW was politically very clever wheras for TM it will cost him his head as
> president of iCCA, for that I'm damned sure.

FYI here is what happened regarding the telephone calls.

My computer got stuck in Malaysia because the airline didn't check it all the
way though, so they postponed my first round, so during that time I had nothing
to do.

I asked if there was anything I could do to help, and I ended up logged into
ICC, frantically asking if anyone had a Tel Aviv phone book, etc.

Eventually someone in Jakarta found their phone number, so we tried to call
them, but there was a problem with the phone lines. Thinking it might just be a
problem with the connection from Asia, Bob tried to call from the USA. This
didn't work either, apparently Israel was pretty much cut off. There was
mention of getting someone to call from Europe, but I don't think we found
anyone.

Apparently the Junior team had already opted out of this play-by-internet
solution, and had told David Levy of this decision, but we didn't know this.

I don't know why you find this an interesting topic, but there is the story.

bruce

brucemo

unread,

Mar 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/15/97

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

> Ok, but you're not that neutral, aren't you? You never commented on the bad
> posts of TM and JS. That was horrible stuff considering usenet ettiquette.

Kerrigan hasn't had net access until recently, so he probably didn't see these
posts.

> And I openly correct for taken you wtrongly as a member of the tour in Jakarta.
> Not with Stobor but as an operator of crafty. I always memorized a *Tom* over
> there who communicvated with Bob. Sorry about that. If I were a bit more in
> this I surely would have known that you as programmer couldn't operate crafty
> because you would have preferred to do you own thing. But back in last autumn I
> never heard of stobor... Sorry. Now I'll wait for a post that even the name
> wasn't Tom at all. Oh boy, the whole almost 5000 pages are mountain-like. :)

The operator of Crafty was Tom Crain, who is very different from Tom Kerrigan.

bruce

mclane

unread,

Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97

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

>kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

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

>>> >>Chris has made certain statements that, if true, make the ICCA look fairly
>>> >>tacky. I think this is neat. Such people are necessary to correct faults
>>> >>and otherwise improve organizations. The not so neat part is that the
>>> >>statements were posted to an Internet newsgroup and a gigabyte of mud was
>>> >>flung, resulting in everybody hating everybody else. What would have been
>>> >>much better, in my opinion, is if Chris first sent the ICCA officers
>>> >>letters.
>>> That's the most carnevalistic opinion I read since the challenge of Kasparov
>>> by our german hirn operator.
>>> But after two weeks one might be allowed to reverse the whole thing CW wrote
>>> about. For our younger readers therefore: CW exactly criticized the habitude of
>>> ICCA NOT to answer his mails. Yes, perhaps he should have written many more
>>> letters to them. :)

>>I was explaining the process. I didn't say he should write _more_ letters
>>to them. It takes a person of your mental calibre to come up with that.

>Maybe I went wrong with your hint because I always understood CW's protest
>deriving from the FACT he DID already write *a lot* to them.
>Not one time. Many times.
>Not the last year only. But for many years the same happening.
>If you take this point of view you simply couldn't give advice to *first write
>letters.*

Right Rolf. The question is really : did chris write to them and get
no answer, and even wore, was inofficially banned by them and got no
answer although he was a paying member of the ICCA.

Of course later you can turn arround anything.
Later you can turn it. But this is not very fair.

Later they can say: oh - there was no bann on him, also we did not
answered him because his mails were so offending.

Later you can turn anything arround. But who will believe this ?
I do not believe them.
Do you ?

>And another one. If maybe CW was too overimpulsive in his judgement? Let's
>assume this for a second ...

>Then we simply look at these horrible postings by ICCA nearbys.

This was an OUTING. Each word and sentence could not have been more
satirical.

>What reason should they have to react like amokers against CW if they were
>completely out of every justified critics. Even you didn't exclude the
>possibility CW maybe was damned right, no?

Right here, Rolf.

>>> >>On the point of everybody hating everybody else, how about we all sit
>>> >>back, take a deep breath,
>>> Open debate. Should be forbidden.
>>> Posting. Argghh. Pornographic and beyond any real human's good taste.
>>> Let's become technicall. Let's do the stob. Eh, sorry, correction, not Bopp.

>>I love open debate. People posting bullshit is not open debate. Case in
>>point.

>>Cheers,
>>Tom

>Don't be angry so quickly. You've no reason for. :)

>It's all a question of being *appropiate*.

Yeah - if the boss is wrong, automatically rule one is to be followed:
ICCA is always right.

>I simply wanted to make clear in public that time hadn't come yet to take both
>*sides* as equal and even further to spell *we* as if we were all together.
>This is misleading bargaining at the wrong moment.

>For me (IMHO) the first claim of CW still stands firmly:

>They answered not wanting to answer. And IMHO they should have answered CW.

>And they revealed (intentionally??) that CW was one of the very few of the
>programmers (BH wrote about his telephone calls, ok, but the rest in Jakarta
>drank beer, right?!) who faught for the Israelians. Now, you're still very
>young, and you must smell the arrogance of TM's answer he published himself,
>no? CW was politically very clever wheras for TM it will cost him his head as
>president of iCCA, for that I'm damned sure.

But what will change if Tony or Jaap or who else will retire ?
If the arrogance and the old structures are still there ?!
No - ICCA should open itself to the members.

If they don't have the resources to speak to a forum like RGCC ....

RGCC is the only world-wide-forum computerchess could have. If you
don't have the resources to be part of it....

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/16/97

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

>Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>> They answered not wanting to answer. And IMHO they should have answered CW.
>> And they revealed (intentionally??) that CW was one of the very few of the
>> programmers (BH wrote about his telephone calls, ok, but the rest in Jakarta
>> drank beer, right?!) who faught for the Israelians. Now, you're still very
>> young, and you must smell the arrogance of TM's answer he published himself,
>> no? CW was politically very clever wheras for TM it will cost him his head as
>> president of iCCA, for that I'm damned sure.

>FYI here is what happened regarding the telephone calls.

>My computer got stuck in Malaysia because the airline didn't check it all the
>way though, so they postponed my first round, so during that time I had nothing
>to do.

>I asked if there was anything I could do to help, and I ended up logged into
>ICC, frantically asking if anyone had a Tel Aviv phone book, etc.

>Eventually someone in Jakarta found their phone number, so we tried to call
>them, but there was a problem with the phone lines. Thinking it might just be a
>problem with the connection from Asia, Bob tried to call from the USA. This
>didn't work either, apparently Israel was pretty much cut off. There was
>mention of getting someone to call from Europe, but I don't think we found
>anyone.

>Apparently the Junior team had already opted out of this play-by-internet
>solution, and had told David Levy of this decision, but we

Interesting to know who is *we*? TM? Or only you and the rest of the
participants?

> didn't know this.

>I don't know why you find this an interesting topic, but there is the story.

Thanks for this part of the story. Why interesting? As you already knew I'm
very much a nobody in the whole ICCA concerning topic. I nevertheless met this
here in rgcc. I read many questions and opinions. Today I see that there were
other information boards e.g. the ICCA journal. I dont know anything about its
content concerning topic Jakarta. But there are still many unanswered questions
here in the rgcc group. Should I excuse if I observe these still missing links?
Should I first start programming a chess computer to be invited to further
informations?

Two quests are still open:

How could it happen that one team at least was completely forgotten in the
planning for the event? What did the collegues in Jakarta think about this? Or
didn't they have the time to think? Exception you because your delayed start.
What did the talk about while drinking so much beer?! Did they find it *normal*
that Junior wasn't there?

And second what the hell (sorry for that impolite expression on sunday morning)
did the ICCA do when *accepting* this very first (!) offer from Jakarta?
Shouldn't they think a bit in advance about the situation there and the
possible political difficulties for the participation of some members of
ICCA???

I'm not a member of ICCA, but I'm reading and writing here in rgcc and I want
to know more about all this. Sorry but I'm too curious, no?

Or is it right, as some people wrote, that ICCA is sort of feudalistic *hidden*
secret organization without control for the officials by their members?

Now, you as sort of representative proxy for the ICCA, perhaps you could tell
me a bit more after some secret talks with *them*. Perhaps they want to come
out of their hide? I mean we live in the year 1997.
Please don't forget to search for an answer on the friedel writing I reported
that for the ICCA the money of the member fees doesn't fit at all for the
year's costs. So that the money from the yearly sponsor is absolutely needed
for the maintainance of the ICCA ...

How much money was the complete Jakarta offer. And how much did ICCA use for
their *normal* yearly need of compensation?

Simple questions for an organization that works without making profit on an
honour basis of free time work.

rolf

>bruce

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
> kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

> >I'm pro-ICCA, but I never said they are infallible. It's not my job or my
> >wish to excuse things they've done, whatever they are.

> Ok, but you're not that neutral, aren't you? You never commented on the bad
> posts of TM and JS. That was horrible stuff considering usenet ettiquette.

I'm not the Internet police, either. I don't comment about millions of bad
posts.

Cheers,
Tom

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97

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

>Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>> Ok, but you're not that neutral, aren't you? You never commented on the bad
>> posts of TM and JS. That was horrible stuff considering usenet ettiquette.

>Kerrigan hasn't had net access until recently, so he probably didn't see these

>posts.
>
>> And I openly correct for taken you wtrongly as a member of the tour in Jakarta.

snipped ...

>> Now I'll wait for a post that even the name
>> wasn't Tom at all. Oh boy, the whole almost 5000 pages are mountain-like. :)

>The operator of Crafty was Tom Crain, who is very different from Tom Kerrigan.

>bruce

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

Thanks again for this trivial information which I missed.

Concerning Tom's *relaxing* post please reread it. Not having read the quoted
TM and JS posts how could he write what he did?! It wasn't appropiate at all
regarding CW.

Thanks for the given detail too.

But TCK in the meantime answered he was not the internet police and couldn't
answer on each stupid post. So, did he read those posts? Question is still
open. And another one too. If he didn't know about and I refered to them the
least he could do was to ask about further details, no?

In my little dictionary I sought for *pupil* (the german notion of course) and
learnt that as *Am.* this meant/was *student*. My question, from when on you
are a student in USA? In Germany till the end of high school you're called
pupil. A student is at a university. Seems to me that today everone who's
learning s.th. is called *student*. How's that in US? A final question for rgcc
goes like this: there are a lot of posters who use servers of universities. How
one could differentiate if they are graduated members of the quoted departments
or, sorry, *just* students down to maybe first semester or just normal users
from outside who had the opportunity to use the server through intermittance of
a friend or so? Here in contrast to US the server account and all connection
time has to be paid. So it is very expensive. The reason why so few europeans
attend live events on ICC e.g.

Ok, if that seems too off-topic please send me email.

Rolf <net-student> Tueschen

Tom C. Kerrigan

unread,

Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97

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

> But TCK in the meantime answered he was not the internet police and couldn't
> answer on each stupid post. So, did he read those posts? Question is still
> open. And another one too. If he didn't know about and I refered to them the
> least he could do was to ask about further details, no?

I'm not sure if you're having a language problem here or what. What I
posted was a suggested course of action for anybody with something against
the ICCA and tried to remind readers that r.g.c.c was not intended as a
medium for pissing all over everybody. You've managed to misinterpret this
badly. I can write this in German if you're still having trouble with it?

> In my little dictionary I sought for *pupil* (the german notion of course) and
> learnt that as *Am.* this meant/was *student*. My question, from when on you

You're horribly confusing everybody by translating every word you write.
Just bite the bullet and say "schuler" and "student," because the concept
does not exist in the US. People who attend school are students. And
sometimes teachers, or professors.

> pupil. A student is at a university. Seems to me that today everone who's
> learning s.th. is called *student*. How's that in US? A final question for rgcc

(BTW, "something" is not often abbreviated as it is in French...)

> goes like this: there are a lot of posters who use servers of universities. How
> one could differentiate if they are graduated members of the quoted departments
> or, sorry, *just* students down to maybe first semester or just normal users
> from outside who had the opportunity to use the server through intermittance of
> a friend or so? Here in contrast to US the server account and all connection

You could try asking them.

I don't pay a cent when I log on to ICC from U. of Paderborn. Same deal in
the US.

Cheers,
Tom

Rolf Tueschen

unread,

Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97

kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:

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

>> But TCK in the meantime answered he was not the internet police and couldn't
>> answer on each stupid post. So, did he read those posts? Question is still
>> open. And another one too. If he didn't know about and I refered to them the
>> least he could do was to ask about further details, no?

>I'm not sure if you're having a language problem here or what.

Oy. Maybe. When I entered rgcc I hadn't opportunity to do s.th. in
english/USversion of english for many many months. :)
But from then on I sucked in each and every little word. And now I spread
around all these by pure imitation. Good or bad? Still I'm not Grisham.

> What I
>posted was a suggested

yes, that was my opinion too. You tried to give the teacher here. At the same
time missing the whole point?! Not t h a t smart.

>course of action for anybody with something against
>the ICCA

And here we are. You did intentionally direct your holy advices to the several
critics of ICCA. But appearently n o t to ICCA officials themselves. But
exactly these men did P I S S around here in rgcc. My question was if you
knew of that fact? Appearently not. As bruce added.

>and tried to remind readers that r.g.c.c was not intended as a
>medium for pissing all over everybody.

Look, for the role of pope they intelligently take a very mature/old man. I
mean if USA felt to play the role of worldwide policeman the single US citizen
doesn't have to play this by force in private, no? This is absolutely unusual
here on usenet. At least I never read the like before.

>You've managed to misinterpret this
>badly. I can write this in German if you're still having trouble with it?

Try it but you don't have to.

>> In my little dictionary I sought for *pupil* (the german notion of course) and
>> learnt that as *Am.* this meant/was *student*. My question, from when on you

>You're horribly confusing everybody by translating every word you write.

No. I'm sure that everybody could understand my question. Even being american.
May I try to explain to you that we've here an international and not US
dominated group? For me at least it was of interest if someone was still pupil
or an university student ... You could see that german is a much broader and
richer :) language.

>Just bite the bullet and say "schuler"

Hey, I wouldn't do that in a million years.

>and "student," because the concept
>does not exist in the US.

Ok, and what follows from this?

>People who attend school are students. And
>sometimes teachers, or professors.

No, please be more precisesly. In a school till gymnasium you won't find a
*professor*, or you are making a visit to Austria. There you'll find even the
hair dresser proudly spelling some higher title e.g. Kaiserlicher Hofrat :) in
front of his name. But that's sort of selfironical freudian masochistic
pleurynotoriousappelatrops, if you can follow me.

>> pupil. A student is at a university. Seems to me that today everone who's
>> learning s.th. is called *student*.

Good said, Rolf. :)

>How's that in US? A final question for rgcc

>(BTW, "something" is not often abbreviated as it is in French...)

Never was in French, if you meant that? I don't know what you're talking about.
I simply imitated regular writings here in rgcc. Check Dejas.

>> goes like this: there are a lot of posters who use servers of universities. How
>> one could differentiate if they are graduated members of the quoted departments
>> or, sorry, *just* students down to maybe first semester or just normal users
>> from outside who had the opportunity to use the server through intermittance of
>> a friend or so? Here in contrast to US the server account and all connection

>You could try asking them.

Ah, good idea.

>I don't pay a cent when I log on to ICC from U. of Paderborn. Same deal in
>the US.

Would you please explain me the details because I would try this too. Must be
as student or pupil?

>Cheers,
>Tom

0 new messages