CSS Article Translation Oct 24
Rolf Tueschen
Since this article and the mistake about Tony and David led to some very hot
debates about ICCA I post this article for all new users once again.
I myself was around 5 weeks in this group when I wrote it.
To understand better the situation of last autumn one has to know that here in
this group there were threads with 150 and more posts about Jakarta and the
thousands of killed people in Indonesia. A lot of thoughtful posts were written
to change the decision for Jakarta in the last minutes. But no ICCA official
showed up and discussed with the critics.
Then I read this *proud* editorial from a german journalist. And this was the
reason I gave some comments about ICCA politics as far as I could understand it
then. I gave an aggressive title subject. But as usual ICCA didn't give any
reaction. They surely thought that a newbie could be neglected.
To understand this stupid mistake about Tony/David one has to know that I'm no
way a talented translator. I did it because of the public request. So that I
could take part someway in this group. For me it was by no means an attack
personally projected against Tony /David. I repeat that the main topic was the
discrepancy hidden/public. The second interesting part was the Junior case.
I was translator / reporter. I didn't invent or detect these *hidden* talks!
My only own argument was that of the money thing. For me this was and is still
unbelievable what was written about the *no money ICCA people*. It's simply not
credible. That's my personal opinion. Everybody is free to think the contrary.
Big thanks to mclane who is the only one here in this group who detected my
mistake after reading the editorial for himself.
Here comes the article:
Header subject:
ICCA politics rather feudalistic than democratic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a former post Chris Whittington wrote:
You may be interested to know that the german chess magazine
Schach und Computer Speile devotes an A4 page of editorial to
the Jakarta tournament.
The editorial follows pretty much the ICCA side of the story,
especially in relation to Junior. It states (if my german is correct)
that Junior did not attend for (mostly) financial reasons connected
with the 'Luxury-tax' and cost of getting from Israel to Amsterdam.
Also stated was that the editor of Schach und Spiele and David
Levy had a 'plan B' to switch to the Internet if the tourney
collapsed. (Again if my german is correct).
Also that David Levy and Tony Marsland had been organising
WMCCC for 25 years using their own time and without financial
compensation.
Maybe a german poster can translate it in full for rgcc ?
Chris Whittington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without permission I won't translate the whole article but give some
extracts.
Before going into details I give this statement:
In the whole INTERNET NEWS discussions - as far as I know about as
newbie - the Junior point and the event as such in Jakarta are not in
conformity with F. Friedels editorial in CSS.
T. Marsland is the so called *president*, and D. Levy has organized
the very first computer ch in Northamerica in 1971. Both have since
then *infatigably* given ther forces to computer chess.
But Chris went wrong in reading that these two went without financial
compensation. (I would have had my doubts about it, BTW. :))
No, FF writes another thing:
Organizing a Micro Wch takes hundreds of hours and no one could expect
any financial compensation for that. This could be confirmed by
redaction of CSS which did organize the Munich Wch in 1993.
As you see nowhere it is told that Marsland/Levy get no money at all.
For me the most interesting part of the article is FFs own engagement
in the whole story!
Tony
[THIS IS MY MISTAKE!! Rolf Tueschen]
sent him always a copy of each and every post that he received or
wrote on Jakarta. They discussed all. They tried to develope a plan B.
But fortunately it never came to this, because the alternative didn't
exist at the end. So the event would simply not taken place at all.
In this respect I find former lines very interesting about the income
of ICCA. ICCA is thrown on the income out of the Wch, because the
running costs are not equal the income by membership fees.
And Jakarta was the ONLY OFFER.
Everyone may judge for himself what all this means.
For me it's clear: Forfeiting Jakarta would have ment for the two (or
more?) selfless organizers: loss of the whole money income....
Reflecting this the information politics of ICCA especially the weeks
before is very very strange. THEY had a strong motive to go despite of
all critics. They didn't discuss it openly but with changing private
mails with Mr. Friedel.
FF writes instead: Many amateurs are very glad/happy ore s.th. (in
german *angetan*) travelling for free to this exotic region.
I really want to know how many saints or martyrs are busy in the
business of computer chess. The whole year without money. I understand
something like: we have to fight till exhaustion for getting rewarded
by each years Wch. That is OUR pre-chrismas lullaby.
But for me there are doubts left. If everyone works hard for his
first/real job how coukd he achieve to get tired once more by letting
flow ALL forces to the benefit of ICCA?
As for alternatives to Jakarta FF gives this: ICCA had invited
everyone to present an alternative - - BUT with also giving the
name(s) of the *new* sponsors. Not a single answer they got despite
offering an attractive recompensation ...
Finally the Junior case.
Shay and Amir did ask for visa directly after inscribing. Mr. Bunawan
from Gunadarma university told wrongly that the were no visa for
israelis. Wrong because Tony - living in Canada - asked the indonesian
consulate in Vancouver. They told him of a little technical problem.
The two had to go to f. i. Amman to get their visa.
More so because Shay also has an american passprt (!).
But at this moment the two amateurs *discovered* that they had to pay
extremly expensive luxury fees for foreign voyages - - for reaching
Amsterdam. Because the didn't feel welcomed in indonesia without that
they decided to retire.
Not a single word of playing via internet.
For me some questions about Junior have been answered. It was not art
all the visa or indonesian governement story that prevented Junior
playing rhe Wch.
Moneymoney makes the world go round.
But for the ICCA directory. Well I may say that I am capable of
phoning or mailing FF as good as Tony.
[THIS AGAIN MY MISTAKE. AND HERE YOU CAN READ THE BIRTH OF THE PHONING STORY.
*I* TRIED TO BE SATIRICAL AND FOUR MONTHS LATER I THOUGHT REMEMBERING THAT TONY
DID THESE CALLS WITH FREDERIC FRIEDEL. Rolf Tueschen]
I am fresh. I want to torment
myself till the next Wch till blood stirs in my veins and my eyes will
turn into puma - - sorry, I meant dollar signs. Why not give your
votes to my ticket.
And I will be a well known newswriter in the net as well. How about
that. :) After desions I will always inform my voters per email
minutes after I did decide. :)
Thanks for your attention, my beloved people. :)
Greetings
Rolf
---------------------------------
Robert Hyatt
Before responding to the below post, a quick statement is in order here. This
sort of pure bullshit has driven many valuable contributors to this newsgroup
away over the years. I've received many emails asking that I not "join" the
banished. I don't intend to do so. However, posts by the two pseudonyms
mclane and tueschen are really non-productive. As a result, I'm going to
respond to the below, and then give my *final* analysis on the topic, and
then I will simply not respond to this thread (or similar threads) in the
future.
It is apparent that there are several problems here. (1) some severe
personality conflicts caused by events or imagined events in the past. This
is not simple to overcome, and is beyond most of our control anyway.
(2) a language problem is also contributing, otherwise many of the posts
in these "threads" would not be made. The algorithm I see the two above
people using looks like this:
while (1) {
article=*next++;
if (strstr(article,"Jakarta) ||
strstr(article,"ICCA") ||
...
) {
post bullshit...
}
}
the problem is, the above posters often post, then reply to their own post if
no one else does, just to keep this going. There's no "break" in the loop, so
it will basically never end.
I suggest that Bruce, Tony, Jonathan, and others simply leave this thread alone,
and let it recycle until it dies. Without our input, the two above posters can
continue only so long before boredom kills the thread, hopefully.
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: Since this article and the mistake about Tony and David led to some very hot
: debates about ICCA I post this article for all new users once again.
: I myself was around 5 weeks in this group when I wrote it.
: To understand better the situation of last autumn one has to know that here in
: this group there were threads with 150 and more posts about Jakarta and the
: thousands of killed people in Indonesia. A lot of thoughtful posts were written
: to change the decision for Jakarta in the last minutes. But no ICCA official
: showed up and discussed with the critics.
: Then I read this *proud* editorial from a german journalist. And this was the
: reason I gave some comments about ICCA politics as far as I could understand it
: then. I gave an aggressive title subject. But as usual ICCA didn't give any
: reaction. They surely thought that a newbie could be neglected.
: To understand this stupid mistake about Tony/David one has to know that I'm no
: way a talented translator.
It would seem to me that the moral of this story is you ought to keep your
thoughts to yourself if you are not sure you are relating factual information
to the newsgroup. Isn't that logical, somehow? If you admit you can't do
something, why in the world would you choose to do it anyway, and in a public
forum to boot? Somewhere there's something wrong with that sort of logic,
or anti-logic...
: I did it because of the public request. So that I
: could take part someway in this group. For me it was by no means an attack
: personally projected against Tony /David. I repeat that the main topic was the
: discrepancy hidden/public. The second interesting part was the Junior case.
You say hidden, I say private. David has every right to talk to whomever he
wants to. Do you know who the current ICCA officers are? Most likely, no, or
David wouldn't keep cropping up here. Do you believe that you should be privy
to every conversation between two people if it has any connection to computer
chess? If so you should also turn your flamethrower on me as well, because I
have *lots* of private conversations, both by phone, and by email, with people
all over the world, and I *don't" kiss and tell here.
If Tony makes a decision on behalf of the ICCA, he owes it to us to explain that
decision, which he did factually and clearly. He doesn't owe it to us to detail
every conversation that took place related to the decision, because he was
elected to make these decisions. If you didn't vote for him, tough. Vote for
your choice next time, and make sure you let your candidate know that he must
post every private conversation he has, so that your insatiable curiousity can
be satiated... But knock off this crap about private conversations being your
business relative to David. He has the same right to privacy that I or anyone
else does. Your demand for information is simply out of line.
: I was translator / reporter. I didn't invent or detect these *hidden* talks!
There were no *hidden* talks. Hidden implies under-the-table. *PRIVATE* is a
much more descriptive word that seems to fit the circumstance much better, and
is ever so much less inflammatory.
: My only own argument was that of the money thing. For me this was and is still
: unbelievable what was written about the *no money ICCA people*. It's simply not
: credible. That's my personal opinion. Everybody is free to think the contrary.
It's the way it's always been however. The TD has always been paid, because he
does have to take time off from work to attend, and spend a week staying quite
busy. I don't like the fact that Jaap was the TD, because I don't personally
believe that Jaap has the qualifications that I'd like to see, such as those
of Mike Valvo. But that's a different subject. If Jaap was the only viable
choice, he still should have been paid, ICCA-officer or not. ICCA officers
are *not* paid for normal ICCA activities, which can be handled from their
regular office. Typically an ICCA officer has a cash outflow that's caused by
postage, phone calls, etc. that is not reimbursed. Again, you continually throw
us this red herring, just because Jaap was TD, and Jaap was affiliated with the
ICCA, that ICCA officers *do* get paid. They don't. The WMCCC TD does get
paid, period. Been that way for a long time, and should continue to be that
way for a long time. Get over it, and drop this topic. You are picking on
one tiny statement, finding one exception, and then going ballistic. The
exception was not hidden. I'm not an ICCA officer. I knew Mike got paid. I
knew David got paid when he did the ACM events before there was an ICCA. And
I saw nothing wrong with any of this. It's not a secret now, and never has
been, except in *your* mind.
: Big thanks to mclane who is the only one here in this group who detected my
: Here comes the article:
: Header subject:
: Chris Whittington
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've not seen any forman explanation by the Junior team after the official
ICCA explanation became public. I tend to believe the ICCA for one simple
reason. The night of the first round, I received a panic phone call from
Bruce Moreland, on behalf of Tony Marsland, to try and contact the Junior
team. I was told that they had agreed to compete via the internet, that
facilities were in place at the tournament site for them to do so, but they
had not logged on. I tried to contact them for over an hour, but could not
get through. It seems to me that the ICCA really believed that they would
play through this exceptional concession (I would have loved to operate
Crafty remotely, to avoid Tom having to travel and take a crash course in
how to operate crafty, how to recover from hardware/software crashes, illegal
moves, and so forth.) However, I didn't get that opportunity, and the Junior
guys did. They were somewhat remiss (IMHO) for not declining the opportunity
earlier, rather than waiting until after the tournament started. There was a
lack of communication somewhere, but it didn't seem to be (to me, anyway) on
the ICCA's side of things. Anyone has the right to not participate. However,
if you don't want to play, you ought to state that. Maybe the Junior team
did, maybe they didn't, only they will know. At least we know that they actually
did have the opportunity to play, had they chosen to do so. They chose not to
for whatever reasons. Their business, but the ICCA certainly did nothing wrong
as far as I can tell, and actually went far beyond what the written tournament
rules allowed to let them participate (rules required a machine on-site and
an operator).
: T. Marsland is the so called *president*, and D. Levy has organized
: the very first computer ch in Northamerica in 1971. Both have since
: then *infatigably* given ther forces to computer chess.
wrong information. Ben Mittman and Monty Newborn organized the first
ACM event in 1970, and every year since then for that matter until it
sort of died away two years ago. Levy never organized any of those
ACM events, although he was the TD in the first 8 or 9, until he
started competing himself. Ben withdrew many years ago from computer
chess activities, but Monty has kept things going until recently. Once
again, your facts are not just slightly wrong, but completely wrong.
: But Chris went wrong in reading that these two went without financial
: compensation. (I would have had my doubts about it, BTW. :))
The only one that has ever been paid directly was the TD. Monty probably
took advantage of a free room, which typically is given when you block reserve
a large number of rooms, or when you hold an event that the hotel in question
believes will make them money. However, that is it. What you believe is
your business, but whatever it is is apparently very wrong.
: No, FF writes another thing:
: Organizing a Micro Wch takes hundreds of hours and no one could expect
: any financial compensation for that. This could be confirmed by
: redaction of CSS which did organize the Munich Wch in 1993.
: As you see nowhere it is told that Marsland/Levy get no money at all.
This has been ICCA policy since it was formed. I was there. There is not,
and never has been a salary for officers. *period*. The tournament has
requirements that must be met, including a quality TD that knows the rules
of chess, the ICCA computer chess rules, and has enough skill to adjudicate
games when necessary. Compensating someone for this is not in any way
contrary to the ICCA policy. You keep implying that it is, but you are
wrong and incorrect. at the same time.
: For me the most interesting part of the article is FFs own engagement
: in the whole story!
: Tony
: [THIS IS MY MISTAKE!! Rolf Tueschen]
: sent him always a copy of each and every post that he received or
: wrote on Jakarta. They discussed all. They tried to develope a plan B.
: But fortunately it never came to this, because the alternative didn't
: exist at the end. So the event would simply not taken place at all.
: In this respect I find former lines very interesting about the income
: of ICCA. ICCA is thrown on the income out of the Wch, because the
: running costs are not equal the income by membership fees.
: And Jakarta was the ONLY OFFER.
: Everyone may judge for himself what all this means.
: For me it's clear: Forfeiting Jakarta would have ment for the two (or
: more?) selfless organizers: loss of the whole money income....
Yet another inflammatory statement based on fiction. The ICCA is chartered
to host these events. That is *the* purpose of the organization. As I said,
I attended the organizational meeting in Toronto in 1977. The journal didn't
come to pass for several more years as a secondary benefit. Other than the
TD, no one makes a penny. *period*. How about either (a) offering proof of
your asinine statement or (b) shutting up about it? Once again, innuendo,
rumor, speculation... but *no* proof. It *does* get old, doesn't it??
: Reflecting this the information politics of ICCA especially the weeks
: before is very very strange. THEY had a strong motive to go despite of
: all critics. They didn't discuss it openly but with changing private
: mails with Mr. Friedel.
: FF writes instead: Many amateurs are very glad/happy ore s.th. (in
: german *angetan*) travelling for free to this exotic region.
: I really want to know how many saints or martyrs are busy in the
: business of computer chess. The whole year without money. I understand
: something like: we have to fight till exhaustion for getting rewarded
: by each years Wch. That is OUR pre-chrismas lullaby.
How about you, as a non-participant *ever*, stop trying to suggest motives
as for why *we* want to have a tournament. I'd suggest that it's none of
your concern, *period*. Write a program, then voice your opinion about what
/where/when to have one. But don't try to psycho-analyze my motives for wanting
to participate. My motives are simple: see how my program does against the
others. *period*. No christmas present. I didn't even travel to Jakarta
because of the long time period I'd be away from classes here, so in my case,
you are *way* off base. I didn't travel a single mile, nor see a single
exotic sight during the event...
: But for me there are doubts left. If everyone works hard for his
: first/real job how coukd he achieve to get tired once more by letting
: flow ALL forces to the benefit of ICCA?
Probably in the same way that I keep wasting time responding to these
continual slanders against the ICCA and the participants at Jakarta. I
don't get paid to do this, so I suppose I'm a volunteer? new concept?
hardly...
: As for alternatives to Jakarta FF gives this: ICCA had invited
: everyone to present an alternative - - BUT with also giving the
: name(s) of the *new* sponsors. Not a single answer they got despite
: offering an attractive recompensation ...
true, and so what? it's rare that there is more than one offer in a
single year. it's not cheap to do such an event...
: Finally the Junior case.
: Shay and Amir did ask for visa directly after inscribing. Mr. Bunawan
: from Gunadarma university told wrongly that the were no visa for
: israelis. Wrong because Tony - living in Canada - asked the indonesian
: consulate in Vancouver. They told him of a little technical problem.
: The two had to go to f. i. Amman to get their visa.
: More so because Shay also has an american passprt (!).
: But at this moment the two amateurs *discovered* that they had to pay
: extremly expensive luxury fees for foreign voyages - - for reaching
: Amsterdam. Because the didn't feel welcomed in indonesia without that
: they decided to retire.
: Not a single word of playing via internet.
It was explained fully in Tony's statement here, however, and in Tony's
article in the ICCA.
: For me some questions about Junior have been answered. It was not art
: all the visa or indonesian governement story that prevented Junior
: playing rhe Wch.
: Moneymoney makes the world go round.
It's certainly not what makes this thread go round, that is spelled
I G N O R A N C E ....
: But for the ICCA directory. Well I may say that I am capable of
: phoning or mailing FF as good as Tony.
: [THIS AGAIN MY MISTAKE. AND HERE YOU CAN READ THE BIRTH OF THE PHONING STORY.
: *I* TRIED TO BE SATIRICAL AND FOUR MONTHS LATER I THOUGHT REMEMBERING THAT TONY
: DID THESE CALLS WITH FREDERIC FRIEDEL. Rolf Tueschen]
: I am fresh. I want to torment
: myself till the next Wch till blood stirs in my veins and my eyes will
: turn into puma - - sorry, I meant dollar signs. Why not give your
: votes to my ticket.
: And I will be a well known newswriter in the net as well. How about
: that. :) After desions I will always inform my voters per email
: minutes after I did decide. :)
: Thanks for your attention, my beloved people. :)
: Greetings
: Rolf
: ---------------------------------
This is the last of this thread for me. You can continue to post, rant, rave,
provide disinformation or false information, so long as you want. It is obvious
that neither of you are interested in truth, just in bashing the ICCA and some
one or two people associated with it. And by responding, it seems that I have
been helping your cause in a back-door way.
I'll discuss any computer-chess related topic with either of you, so I am not
going to use a "kill" because you might have interesting ideas in other areas.
But for me, *this* thread is dead... a poetic ending and a nice place to stop
as well...
mclane
As you said: for you the thread is ended. Thats your decision.
I have a different.
You can defend or comment whatever you do.
I will comment whatever I will.
If somebody adhudicates the one day for chess reasons, the other day
for computer-chess-reasons, and you call it hearsay, that is not my
problem.
I would not pay the guy. You can.
Rolf Tueschen
Thanks, Bob, for this final answer. Just for the record I give some corrections
and show some big errors you made when reading this post which dated Oct 24
1996. You overlooked that I translated s.th.
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Before responding to the below post, a quick statement is in order here. This
>sort of pure bullshit has driven many valuable contributors to this newsgroup
>away over the years. I've received many emails asking that I not "join" the
>banished. I don't intend to do so. However, posts by the two pseudonyms
>mclane and tueschen
(!)
> are really non-productive. As a result, I'm going to
>respond to the below, and then give my *final* analysis on the topic, and
>then I will simply not respond to this thread (or similar threads) in the
>future.
Bob, that's my wish too. You seem to have fully misunderstood the once again
quoted post from Oct 24. Someone of this group asked for a german helper to
translate Friedel's editorial. Can't you understand this?
The best reaction to this and some of my own *newbie* *ideas* would have been:
to say simply *but please read the so and so post of T. Marsland in this
thread*. But none responded this. *You* claimed now that T. Marsland *did* post
s.th. last autumn. I wrote via email that I did not have this post. And I asked
you to send me a copy. But you didn't do this. Instead you wrote this *final*
post. So until now Feb 14 GMT 19:00 I didn't see any example of TMs posts over
Jakarta.
>It is apparent that there are several problems here. (1) some severe
>personality conflicts caused by events or imagined events in the past. This
>is not simple to overcome, and is beyond most of our control anyway.
>(2) a language problem is also contributing, otherwise many of the posts
>in these "threads" would not be made. The algorithm I see the two above
>people using looks like this:
> while (1) {
> article=*next++;
> if (strstr(article,"Jakarta) ||
> strstr(article,"ICCA") ||
> ...
> ) {
> post bullshit...
> }
> }
Bob, thanks for this wisdom. But I simply remember the date of my post. It was
the Oct 24 1996. I was new here. And I tried to help someone who asked for
this. If others had come with a better result, it would have been fine with me.
My *goal* NEVER was to react like a Pavlov dog on ICCA topics. Sorry that you
had this impression. You again mix up several things and try to cheat. I only
reacted on stupid Schaeffer stuff e.g. But that was *live* internet not what he
may have contributed to ICCA. Please try to differentiate this for my person.
>the problem is, the above posters often post, then reply to their own post if
>no one else does, just to keep this going. There's no "break" in the loop, so
>it will basically never end.
Here or via email to keep the traffic off -- please give me one single example
for my posts at least.
>I suggest that Bruce, Tony, Jonathan, and others simply leave this thread alone,
>and let it recycle until it dies. Without our input, the two above posters can
>continue only so long before boredom kills the thread, hopefully.
Sorry Bob, I won't continue that. As my motive was not ICCA but taking part
here in rgcc.
>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
>: Since this article and the mistake about Tony and David led to some very hot
>: debates about ICCA I post this article for all new users once again.
>: I myself was around 5 weeks in this group when I wrote it.
Could you consider this as fact, Bob? Thanks.
>It would seem to me that the moral of this story is you ought to keep your
>thoughts to yourself if you are not sure you are relating factual information
>to the newsgroup. Isn't that logical, somehow? If you admit you can't do
>something, why in the world would you choose to do it anyway, and in a public
>forum to boot? Somewhere there's something wrong with that sort of logic,
>or anti-logic...
Wait a minute or second. You are again cheating. I said that I was not a
good/talented translator. Did you see someone else react? No thanks at all?
From an american who speaks how many well known languages? Do you understand
any german?
>: I did it because of the public request. So that I
>: could take part someway in this group. For me it was by no means an attack
>: personally projected against Tony /David. I repeat that the main topic was the
>: discrepancy hidden/public. The second interesting part was the Junior case.
>You say hidden, I say private. David has every right to talk to whomever he
>wants to. Do you know who the current ICCA officers are? Most likely, no, or
>David wouldn't keep cropping up here. Do you believe that you should be privy
>to every conversation between two people if it has any connection to computer
>chess? If so you should also turn your flamethrower on me as well, because I
>have *lots* of private conversations, both by phone, and by email, with people
>all over the world, and I *don't" kiss and tell here.
Bob, you loose ground here. I translated an open/public editorial ABOUT private
talks. Did you miss the difference?
> Your demand for information is simply out of line.
Bob, it's not that difficult, no?
>: I was translator / reporter. I didn't invent or detect these *hidden* talks!
>There were no *hidden* talks. Hidden implies under-the-table.
Bob, again that's rather strange. It was hidden from public knowledge, yes? Or
did you know that Jakarta could have been stopped possibly? And did *you* know
all this in Oct from our threads alone?? So it was hidden, no?
-----------
>: My only own argument was that of the money thing. For me this was and is still
>: unbelievable what was written about the *no money ICCA people*. It's simply not
>: credible. That's my personal opinion. Everybody is free to think the contrary.
>It's the way it's always been however. The TD has always been paid, because he
>does have to take time off from work to attend, and spend a week staying quite
>busy. I don't like the fact that Jaap was the TD, because I don't personally
>believe that Jaap has the qualifications that I'd like to see, such as those
>of Mike Valvo. But that's a different subject. If Jaap was the only viable
>choice, he still should have been paid, ICCA-officer or not. ICCA officers
>are *not* paid for normal ICCA activities, which can be handled from their
>regular office. Typically an ICCA officer has a cash outflow that's caused by
>postage, phone calls, etc. that is not reimbursed. Again, you continually throw
>us this red herring, just because Jaap was TD, and Jaap was affiliated with the
>ICCA, that ICCA officers *do* get paid. They don't. The WMCCC TD does get
>paid, period. Been that way for a long time, and should continue to be that
>way for a long time. Get over it, and drop this topic. You are picking on
>one tiny statement, finding one exception, and then going ballistic. The
>exception was not hidden. I'm not an ICCA officer. I knew Mike got paid. I
>knew David got paid when he did the ACM events before there was an ICCA. And
>I saw nothing wrong with any of this. It's not a secret now, and never has
>been, except in *your* mind.
Bob, as you know so damn many things. How much money the sponsor threw into
this Jakarta event? In direction of ICCA, I assume. Bob, short answer. Do you
need 5 or 6 numbers in front ...?
>: Big thanks to mclane who is the only one here in this group who detected my
>: mistake after reading the editorial for himself.
----------------------------
>: T. Marsland is the so called *president*, and D. Levy has organized
>: the very first computer ch in Northamerica in 1971. Both have since
>: then *infatigably* given ther forces to computer chess.
>wrong information. Ben Mittman and Monty Newborn organized the first
>ACM event in 1970, and every year since then for that matter until it
>sort of died away two years ago. Levy never organized any of those
>ACM events, although he was the TD in the first 8 or 9, until he
>started competing himself. Ben withdrew many years ago from computer
>chess activities, but Monty has kept things going until recently. Once
>again, your facts are not just slightly wrong, but completely wrong.
Bob, thanks. You are free to correct Frederic on that. *I* was only the
translator. Remember that, please.
>: But Chris went wrong in reading that these two went without financial
>: compensation. (I would have had my doubts about it, BTW. :))
>The only one that has ever been paid directly was the TD. Monty probably
>took advantage of a free room, which typically is given when you block reserve
>a large number of rooms, or when you hold an event that the hotel in question
>believes will make them money. However, that is it. What you believe is
>your business, but whatever it is is apparently very wrong.
>: No, FF writes another thing:
>: Organizing a Micro Wch takes hundreds of hours and no one could expect
>: any financial compensation for that. This could be confirmed by
>: redaction of CSS which did organize the Munich Wch in 1993.
>: As you see nowhere it is told that Marsland/Levy get no money at all.
>This has been ICCA policy since it was formed. I was there. There is not,
>and never has been a salary for officers. *period*. The tournament has
>requirements that must be met, including a quality TD that knows the rules
>of chess, the ICCA computer chess rules, and has enough skill to adjudicate
>games when necessary. Compensating someone for this is not in any way
>contrary to the ICCA policy. You keep implying that it is, but you are
>wrong and incorrect. at the same time.
>: For me the most interesting part of the article is FFs own engagement
>: in the whole story!
>: They discussed all. They tried to develope a plan B.
>: But fortunately it never came to this, because the alternative didn't
>: exist at the end. So the event would simply not taken place at all.
>: In this respect I find former lines very interesting about the income
>: of ICCA. ICCA is thrown on the income out of the Wch, because the
>: running costs are not equal the income by membership fees.
>: And Jakarta was the ONLY OFFER.
>: Everyone may judge for himself what all this means.
>: For me it's clear: Forfeiting Jakarta would have ment for the two (or
>: more?) selfless organizers: loss of the whole money income....
>Yet another inflammatory statement based on fiction. The ICCA is chartered
>to host these events. That is *the* purpose of the organization. As I said,
>I attended the organizational meeting in Toronto in 1977. The journal didn't
>come to pass for several more years as a secondary benefit. Other than the
>TD, no one makes a penny. *period*. How about either (a) offering proof of
>your asinine statement or (b) shutting up about it? Once again, innuendo,
>rumor, speculation... but *no* proof. It *does* get old, doesn't it??
You must be almost partially blind, Bob. The logic is very easy: No Jakarta,
no money from the sponsor. Got it? No money from sponsor ---> big hole in the
pocket of ICCA. Clear, no?
----------------------
>: I really want to know how many saints or martyrs are busy in the
>: business of computer chess. The whole year without money. I understand
>: something like: we have to fight till exhaustion for getting rewarded
>: by each years Wch. That is OUR pre-chrismas lullaby.
>How about you, as a non-participant *ever*, stop trying to suggest motives
>as for why *we* want to have a tournament. I'd suggest that it's none of
>your concern, *period*. Write a program, then voice your opinion about what
>/where/when to have one. But don't try to psycho-analyze my motives for wanting
>to participate. My motives are simple: see how my program does against the
>others. *period*. No christmas present. I didn't even travel to Jakarta
>because of the long time period I'd be away from classes here, so in my case,
>you are *way* off base. I didn't travel a single mile, nor see a single
>exotic sight during the event...
Bob again, you are quite upset. But maybe you missed the point. With my limited
english I related to ICCA officials with this *we*, NOT to the many
programmers. Please don't flame me for your limited visibility... :)
>: But for me there are doubts left. If everyone works hard for his
>: first/real job how coukd he achieve to get tired once more by letting
>: flow ALL forces to the benefit of ICCA?
>Probably in the same way that I keep wasting time responding to these
>continual slanders against the ICCA and the participants at Jakarta. I
>don't get paid to do this, so I suppose I'm a volunteer? new concept?
>hardly...
Really I always thought about that but couldn't find any proof. :)
>: As for alternatives to Jakarta FF gives this: ICCA had invited
>: everyone to present an alternative - - BUT with also giving the
>: name(s) of the *new* sponsors. Not a single answer they got despite
>: offering an attractive recompensation ...
>true, and so what? it's rare that there is more than one offer in a
>single year. it's not cheap to do such an event...
Bob, please give us some more information. How many millions? I mean US$$.
>: Finally the Junior case.
......
<snipped for the sake of all readers :) >
>: Moneymoney makes the world go round.
>It's certainly not what makes this thread go round,
Who knows, Bob.
> that is spelled
>I G N O R A N C E ....
>This is the last of this thread for me. You can continue to post, rant, rave,
>provide disinformation or false information, so long as you want. It is obvious
>that neither of you are interested in truth,
Bob. that's the most aggressive thing you ever wrote to me. And it hurts. But
you are badly wrong about this. But you are right, the whole ICCA thing came to
early for me.
> just in bashing the ICCA and some
>one or two people associated with it. And by responding, it seems that I have
>been helping your cause in a back-door way.
>I'll discuss any computer-chess related topic with either of you, so I am not
>going to use a "kill" because you might have interesting ideas in other areas.
>But for me, *this* thread is dead... a poetic ending and a nice place to stop
>as well...
I still wait on the copies of TM posts about Jakarta. Because for the sake of
truth I want to correct some theories that were wrong WHEN/IF these posts
really exist. I didn't see them yet.
In awaiting this final present possibly via email, I want to thank you what
concerns MY ICCA writings. I'm only responsible for these. And you can count on
the fact that I will learn a lot out of this. Don Beal was very right writing
about this speed in usenet. You simply don't have the time to search for all
details. But look at my post from Oct 24. How long took it before you entered
this? Why? And that is the astonishing thing. You clearly had a role in this
topic. That of a defender. From *rape* to sinister pseudonymus flyings you
really surfed through foggy weather. Perhaps because of some time lag. Where
were you last Oct?
Thanks for accepting further *computer* quests. Thanks again.
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> If somebody adhudicates the one day for chess reasons, the other day
> for computer-chess-reasons, and you call it hearsay, that is not my
> problem.
>
> I would not pay the guy. You can.
In another post I asked you for more info regarding this incident. In
the mean time I looked it up.
It was the last round game, Kasparov Sparc vs MChess Pro, WMCCC
1993, right? I loaded this game. It was won by MChess, with black,
and in the final position there is still a lot of play but black is
down a pawn.
Why was this game adjudicated as won for black when black is down a
pawn in a middlegame position?
There doesn't seem to be any obvious motive for this. The tournament
was won by Hiarcs with 7.5. Mchess with this free win scored 5.5
points, and Kasparov Saitek with this free loss scored 4.5. So maybe
it "should" have been the other way around, with KS at 5.5 and MChess
at 4.5. But it could also have been a draw, or ended up the way the
game was adjudicated, who knows. In any case it didn't affect the
result of the tournament, and neither program would have had more or
less to brag about had the game gone the other way.
Why was this game adjudicated as a win for black? And why are you,
who was operating the winning program, still angry about this after
three years?
bruce
brucemo
Robert Hyatt wrote:
> I suggest that Bruce, Tony, Jonathan, and others simply leave this thread alone,
> and let it recycle until it dies. Without our input, the two above posters can
> continue only so long before boredom kills the thread, hopefully.
I have mixed feelings about this. I may still post in this thread, but I think
that I'm disinclined to, for several reasons. I'm not a big Rolf Tueschen fan, but
he doesn't bother me very much usually because I find it very hard to read what he
writes. His posts are often long, angry, hard to understand, and are about topics
that I don't care about.
I don't know much about Frederick Friedel. I don't care to know any more than I do
know. I don't care if he talked to Marsland and/or Levy, and for that matter I
don't care if they are great buddies or can't stand each other. I don't know what
it proves if they talk or don't talk, and I haven't tried to figure it out, either,
because I don't care even remotely about any of this.
I get the idea that this whole thing may have been some sort of misunderstanding,
but it's hard to know, because Tueschen seems to make a lot of what might be jokes,
but since it's hard to read his posts, it's hard to distinguish when he is trying
to make a funny joke, trying to make a sarcastic joke, or when he is trying to be
serious. It takes more effort than I'm willing to spend.
It's also hard to know what he is trying to accomplish in general. I don't know
anyone who knows who this guy is. I don't know why he posts in this newsgroup.
I don't think Tueschen is saying anything interesting in this thread, but who
knows. If he starts accusing me of taking secret payments from the ICCA or
something like that, I'll probably be too pissed off to ignore it.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: mclane wrote:
: bruce
and why not raise hell at the tournament, and immediately after as well?
It might have been a bad decision, it might be that the game really was
won by black, pawn down or not.
I've seen other decisions I didn't like, I complained at the time, but got
over it.
In 1977 blitz vs Belle. Back in the days of English Descriptive notation
(things like B-QB4 and B-KB4 for example). We were having a difficult time
with modems at the tournament. Everytime the MC said something over the mic,
one or more modems would disconnect due to noise crossing over into the
phone lines. Blitz was disconnected, and when I restarted, I made a small
error that confused it on which side was the queen-side and which was the
king-side. It announced a move (B-QB4 I belive) which instantly lost the
bishop to a pin that a two ply search saw. I wasn't watching the output,
I was watching the board diagram and made the move it really wanted, which
was B-KB4. Ken noticed in the output that it "said" move the other bishop
and pointed this out to David. I showed david the output, where it said
B-QB4, but also at the same time it displayed the board and had clearly
played (internally) the other bishop move. David ruled that what it announced
was what had to be played. Blitz lost, and the tournament continued, and that
was it. I protested at the time it happened, but the ruling seemed fair even if
not what I wanted. You can be be the judge. But complaining 3 years later would
certainly not have accomplished anything.
However, if you look at *all* the ACM events, and all the games, and all the
problems, David did a remarkable jobs over the years. I still think he made a
mistake in my case, and perhaps in one or two others. But he also made good
decisions in a couple of hundred other "happenings". The good outweigh the
bad. One thing I *know* howeer was it was not a personal decision, because I
hardly knew David at all...
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Robert Hyatt wrote:
>> I suggest that Bruce, Tony, Jonathan,
>I have mixed feelings about this.
> I don't know what
>it proves if they talk or don't talk, and I haven't tried to figure it out, either,
>because I don't care even remotely about any of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are able to explain to *gazoline* Bob. Because he was unable to
understand.
I make it very short.
Till that very moment now and especially on Oct 24 and the following time I
am/was convinced that ICCA officials didn't show on rgcc about Jakarta. Maybe
I'm wrong -- let's see. But I didn't read anything from their side. Sure, Bob
was one of the firm defendants. Several thousands of killed/murdered people
couldn't change his mind about chess in Jakarta. Your's neither!
Now, what's the point with the formerly wrongly supposed Tony - but still noww
with other persons -- was the NOT showing up in public debate here in rgcc AND
the HIDDEN talks about Jakarta - hold it: about each and every email about
Jakarta David received and wrote himself.
That was not my invention. I translated this. And asked simply: is this
democratic or more feudalistic behaviour? Becuase here in rgcc many well known
experts discussed. But no ICCA.
That was my point. Very simple. Now you can try to follow Bob into the fog. But
it's my belief that you couldn't defend ICCA policy for long that way.
And Bob will in future remember the wrong in attacking the reprter for
reporting. Another thing is the mistake about Tony/David. But this could only
temporaily hide the real scandal. I'm almost sure you don't see any scandal.
But all this doesn't depend on what Bob, you or me think. Future will tell us
more.
>I get the idea that this whole thing may have been some sort of misunderstanding,
>but it's hard to know,
>bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and it's not a misunderstanding. Look, even if David has nothing to do
with ICCA officially at the moment, I must admit *I* thought in Oct he did, the
fact that ICCA did make hidden decisions for Jakarta, didn't join rgcc public
debate about mass murder, and that only because no other sponsor couldn't be
found Jakarta did happen in the end, this is the whole scandal.
My second question: how much money did Jakarta bring for the ICCA?
My third question how the ICCA would have managed the situation if Jakarta
would have been cancelled?
Because as I translated F. Friedel: ICCA is absolutely dependend of the money
from these Wchs! Because the normal member fees aren't enough.
Did I write easy enough? Did I omit all possible jokes?
Could you as second defendent of ICCA please answer some of these questions?
My motivation:
I could live on without an answer to any of my questions. I'm not a member in
ICCA:
My motivation from Oct:
I was happy to help the group in that discussion. Because I understand
internet, usenet and this group rgcc as phantastic enlargement of posibillity
to communicate. Especially in rgcc because it's my hoppy since long to play
computer chess. Sure, I'm only a user. No programmer or expert. But to be able
to speak to you and all others everywhere is so much fun.
I know that my posts aren't interesting for mere programmers. But look around
how many programmers write here and how many users.
My motivation in Feb 1997:
After all this Chris, Schaeffer, Bob and your own, Walker and Beal I don't know
exactly. But I'm quite convinced that we saw s.th. strange happen. Which has
not so much to do with open/public/free/ international etc.
I'm still interested in computer chess. Therefore rgcc id THE group for me. But
I'm also clearly on one side. On the side of those whose speach some people
tried to cut. And although it seems that the ICCA with Bob and you as
defendents are not quite through. But we need some time to see.
All those who try to efface the memory on Jakarta won't succeed. And you can
bet that I will now always be on the side of those who always voted against
Jakarta. Bob did play too much dirty things. Read my post about Alekhine's trap
also from last autumn. Bob is on chess for me benchmark Nr one. But on topics
like politics he seems to be very dangerous. You see I'm writing with care.
But an expert who is unable to seperate Thorsten and traumschiff or teuschen
(!) is very dangerous. :) Who compares Tony/David thing with rape must have
some burning candles in his ears ... Or nuts, I think is the right expressin,
no?
So, what do you want? I feel like being at home. :)
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Why was this game adjudicated as a win for black? And why are you,
>who was operating the winning program, still angry about this after
>three years?
>bruce
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Again only short for the younger readers:
1 question:
When will u understand th@ some people have other values than u as
1-dimensional defender of ICCA?!
Just gimmi a short answer: a) next week or b) in 2001?
rolf :)
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Interesting discussion. What I don't see is what was going on. IE,
>you mentioned something about a bogus adjudication? Or is this a
>different game than the above?
This is another thing that happened 2 games with Van den Herik.
For this we have about 4 whitnesses, if you don't believe ME.
>what did Friedel have to do with this event? I wasn't involved in micro
>events, so what was his function? Was David the TD or who?
I don't remember it anymore. But it will not be difficult to find out
about the FORMAL settings.
Fact is, IMO, that Friedel was involved, and not in the best way.
>The rules are clear, however, and the following has been around for
>a long time:
>1. the operator can't resign for the program, and that's not new. So
>he was right there.
I do not deny that Friedel - if he was in charge - was RIGHT.
But this is not the point. I do refer on the way HOW he had done it.
The participants had no problems with the event, also the participants
had no problems with themselves, I think the ICCA officials had
problems to deal accurate with the participants.
>2. the operator is not allowed to "poke" the machine on occasion to
>see if it is alive and well. That's why most of us have some sort of
>dynamic display that clearly shows us if the machine is up or down,
>because the rules prevent us hitting the return key every 15 seconds.
>However, the program can (as crafty does) hiccup something every 15
>seconds just to show it's doing something.
It was a dedicated machine. They are not used to have these features
at all.
But the *BUG* was well known in the scene from misbehaviour before.
>So, the case was very vague. You apparently tried to do the right thing. I
>broke the rules a few years ago with John Stanback, same sort of circumstance,
>and gave him a chance to fix a bug in what appeared to be a drawn position,
>but which we would have trivially won on time by the rules. We actually won
>by finding some deep tactics later, but it was not legal. But it seemed
>right to both of us.
Yes. IMO , both sides participate in a sports-event. So it should be
fair and with tolerance. Also this is a cultural theme that one should
accept the other and join together the event.
At least, this was common sense between the PARTICIPANTS and it worked
really well.
I had to safe the RIGHTS of Mchess. Of course I could overreact the
same nasty way Friedel has done, I could have called instantly the
Tournament Direktor (" David ?! Daaaaaviiiid ?!") and insists in:
Let the machine "compute" if it wants to (Mr. Niggemann: I want you to
continue the game !!).
But for me it was clear that SPARC crashed, I had this module in my
shop and at home and KNEW about the problems.
Also I wanted to be fair.
So I made an imtimate arrangement with him that he should try to fix
it so that we can continue the game in a fair way.
>However, to my knowledge, friedel has not been a TD, so I don't see what he
>was involved in this for at all. David should have told him to buzz off
>and then handled things as best he could according to the rules.
Shut up pope ! ??? No -David did not tell Friedel to be quiet. It was
Friedel leading the whole situation.
It was Computerschach + Spiele and therefore him and Steinwender who
were involved for operational stuff in this championship. He and
Steinwender organized this event.
Friedel can lead whatever he wants. Also I was only a visitor and
don't have the rights he has.
But I found his behaviour THAT impolite (on the other side very
typical for him) that I made friendship with a an old "enemy" .
I have told this many times here, I would like to repeat it:
Friedel is doing his misbehaviour and his arrogant snobistic stuff
that nice, that he makes it very EASY for US to collect all his
enemies together in one group to be altogether AGAINST HIM.
You don't know about this , because you live in another country.
>However, this is not grounds for incriminating the entire ICCA. At best,
>David screwed up as I suspect he must have been the TD, but I'm not sure.
>At worst, Friedel injected himself where he didn't belong. I'm not aware
>of the details so can't quite figure out what his part was in this saga.
>I'll accept your explanation, but it would be nice to know how he got into
>the loop...
I think there must have been more eye/ear/whitnesses than me, although
I had a nice place. There was a big bunch ot people arround.
Because Friedel was so loud and many persons IN ACTION and and and...
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>> I suggest that Bruce, Tony, Jonathan,
>>I have mixed feelings about this.
>>bruce
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>My motivation:
>My motivation from Oct:
Ich verstehe alle deine Besorgnisse Rolf. Ich moechte dich nur bitten,
solche Betitelungen wie Gazoline-Bob und andere Dinge wegzulassen.
Es enstellt deine Aeusserungen sehr, und bringt letztendlich nichts.
Man muss auch einen Gegner respektieren. Ich sage das nicht, ohne
selbst meine Probleme damit zu haben, keine Frage. Aber ich stehe auch
nicht auf üble Nachrede.
Vielleicht ist der Kern unserer Kommunikationsschwierigkeiten ja auch
eher ein kulturelles Problem.
mclane
Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Thorsten this is an incredible story!
>I missed all this, this is what I remember from Munich 1993.
>If memory serves me well I can't remember that Fred Friedel ever was
>related to the ICCA. I checked the latest ICCA journal, I didn't see
>his name, but I could be wrong?
>To my best knowledge Friedel was the main organizer of the WCM tournament
>nothing more nothing less and he did a very good job concerning this.
Right. Ossi Weiner's company had anniversary / jubilee and so he said:
We will found if it will happen here in munich.
Computerschach and Spiele helped organising the championship.
There were even more unbelievable NASTY and shameful things that
happened there and showed me the REAL FACE of those, who were in
charge for these things.
E.g. some people of the HELPING-team that should try to organize and
HELP tried to SEPARATE one of their members and throw him out of the
team and out of the hotel.
His name was Jens-Schmidt-Wilke. A nice guy who is known for his
articles in computerschach & spiele where he tries himself in games by
his own to beat the programs , commenting his efforts/games and gives
a rating or an evaluation of the products.
I was totally shocked when I found some guys in the HELPING team in
their effort of throwing him out of the tournament because of some
silly jealously stuff against him. Some testers were jealous because
Jens was a chess-player or whatever.
For me he was really a nice guy, and one could speak with him in a
nice waqy about chess and programs because he knew about chess.
Isn't it shocking when an organisation like Computerschach & Spiele
invites somebody and then tries to throw this guy out of the
tournament + hotel ?!
Maybe somebody else can tell us more about this unbelievable thing.
Maybe Jens himself.
>As far as I remember the first rounds the "Tournament Director" (TD) was
>Jaap v/d Herik. Later (round 4/5/6?) David Levy came and took over the
>TD role OR Jaap and David exchanged the TD role from day to day.
Ok-. David Levy is a chess player and knows about chess AND
computerchess. But what is Friedel's qualification ?
He knows somebody who knows something. That is all.
>Anyway I can't understand what Friedel has to do with this game. He was
>not the TD or was he in this particular round?
>
He was in the same hotel, that's enough. The whole tournament he
behaved as is HE is the boss and we are the visitors.
He wanted to let us know about this HIS perspective of the world.
I call this narcistic or arrogant or idle.
>In your story I simply MISS what the TD decided.
>What did David or Jaap decide?
There was no right decision because Niggemann was that much AFFECTED
by the attacks of friedel that HE DECIDED TO BRAKE the dedicated
machine in 2 pieces.
So in the end he destroyed his machine because he wanted to get rid of
Friedel. Unbelievable , if you think about it, but on the other hand
very human, compaired to the situation.
In my opinon it is not randomn that THIS *EVENT* was not reported in
the article of Frederic Friedel.
I have seen this kind of unsound overreaction by Jan van den Herik in
the same tournament. Maybe some people were often drunken at this
event :-)
>Or was it already too late then?
IMO the game was over and lost for Sparc because of technical problems
or whatever. I don't know anymore. Of course it was TOO late.
Although Levy was called by Friedel and arrived, that was the reason
Friedel suddenly spoke ENGLISH to us although both participants were
german and also Friedel is german (if he is german. I don't know if he
is german. But - of course he should be able to understand and speak
german).
>: Suddenly Niggemann broke the interface cable off the interface card
>: into 2 pieces, Was very upset. Showed it Friedel and said:
>: Here, you see I have broken the machine !! Now it is REALLY broken.
>: It cannot continue to play anyway.
>Well Guenter should have been only focused on the TD in stead of Friedel!
>But I can understand his emotions.
Yeah! My *friendship* to Guenter Niggemann began this day.
Thanks Frederic !!
Your arrogant behaviour is not negative at all.
>: Friedel said something with: this will have consequences and the whole
>: stuff was over with much rumors and many adrenalin in the air.
>: Mchess won in a weaker position.
>It's a horrible story, however I see only 2 errors:
>- Guenter only had a responsibility to the TD and to nobody else.
>- The TD in charge had to be much more clear in this situation.
But this IS the main criticism of me, about the ICCA. They normally DO
NO CLEAR DECISIONS in no case. Not concerning the money, not
concerning the rules/laws, not concenring anything.
Just a bunch of people who decide spontaneously !!
>The TD is the big boss, he decides, that's his job.
>Let's hope such things will never happen again.
>- Ed Schroder -
Oh - it was quite amusing. Also it made an ape out of friedel.
I would call it a good job ! :-)
No - you are right. This is not computerchess at it's best.
It is a pity that this was not the only munich-disaster.
I have missed these things in the editorial of computerschach & spiele
or in the reports in CSS. Instead they printed lyrics written by Mader
(or was it Mally - I do always mix them up).
>: I was - like visiting a theather - in a nice play.
>: Although I did not liked Niggemann much before, I had respect that he
>: defended himself against the wrong WAY Friedel tried to solute the
>: situation. I don't think Niggemann was right to do it this way.
>: But I think the WAY Friedel tried to solve it was contra-productive.
>: QED : Niggemann showed that the consequences of this contraproductive
>: behaviour lead in a loud action.
>: After this action my feelings for Mr. Niggemann were much stronger and
>: later I signed a contract in his company where I worked for some time.
>: This was just ONE case there.
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>bruce
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>1 question:
>rolf :)
I will answer Bruce, and I will do it , because I am polite, in HIS
mother-language. I will give my best, what is not much:
Dear Bruce, in another thread I tried to tell the story, that is some
years ago.
You ask why this game was adjudicated as a win for black.
And you ask, why I am angry about this after 3 years now.
Look:
I was there. I was sitting in the first rank. Best place. Nearly 1
meter away from the ACTION.
You were not in munich, or ?!
So you must be clairvoyant if you would know this story better than I
do.
But I understand that you have questions.
I hope you understand better when you read the other post where I have
tried to tell the story.
mclane
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>> If somebody adhudicates the one day for chess reasons, the other day
>> for computer-chess-reasons, and you call it hearsay, that is not my
>> problem.
>>
>> I would not pay the guy. You can.
>In another post I asked you for more info regarding this incident. In
>the mean time I looked it up.
>It was the last round game, Kasparov Sparc vs MChess Pro, WMCCC
>1993, right? I loaded this game. It was won by MChess, with black,
>and in the final position there is still a lot of play but black is
>down a pawn.
>Why was this game adjudicated as won for black when black is down a
>pawn in a middlegame position?
>There doesn't seem to be any obvious motive for this. The tournament
>was won by Hiarcs with 7.5. Mchess with this free win scored 5.5
>points, and Kasparov Saitek with this free loss scored 4.5. So maybe
>it "should" have been the other way around, with KS at 5.5 and MChess
>at 4.5. But it could also have been a draw, or ended up the way the
>game was adjudicated, who knows. In any case it didn't affect the
>result of the tournament, and neither program would have had more or
>less to brag about had the game gone the other way.
>Why was this game adjudicated as a win for black? And why are you,
>who was operating the winning program, still angry about this after
>three years?
>bruce
I had to operate Mchess!
Sparc had problems to continue game. Crashed any 15 minutes. Crash was
not easy to detect. It computed without any sign that it is crashed!
So: operatot tried out if it is crashed by pressing PLAY button.
If no reaction, then it was crashed. But 15 minutes or even more
waisted !!
If reaction, then he interrupt process of thinking!
It happened once. I told Mr. Niggemann (the operator of this
COMMERCIAL program) that he should stop the clocks and try to fix the
problem and we start the clocks when he is ready.
He had to input the whole game from the beginning or input the
position (from sero is better because of draw-rule or pointers for
move-numbers).
He did. No referee to see.
It happened again.
We did the same.
Again he tried to continue by playing thew moves from sero on the
wooden Saitek-board.
It happened at least thrice.
We were both not angry or under adrenalin. We were both very relaxed.
I kned that Mchess munich was not Marty's best effort. Mchess was TOO
SLOW at this time (to much knowlegde ?!).
He was in the better position. But his program always crashed. My
hardware was IMO better. I thought: whatever happens, Mchess will do
the job, by winning itself or because of hardware failure of opponent.
Knowing this I tried to be as fair and in the spirit of a sportsman I
could, although Mr. Niggemann was (this time in 1993) not my favourite
friend.
In this moment Friedel walked arround , saw the clocks stopped and
asked:
Oh - what happened here ?
Now the whole situation explodes. Before anything was under control.
No bad feelings. No cheating. Any side doing its best, but then
suddenly ICCA involves its power, the situation is overstressed and is
losing balance.
We tried to explain Friedel (who was in a better friendship to
Mr.Niggemann than I was this day - so they both KNEW each other)
but he did not understand it. Or he understood but was not willing to
HELP to find a solution WITH us but AGAINST us.
The following stuff happened mainly between Friedel/Levy and
Niggemann. I was only eye-whitness. But I had a good place to this
drama because I was sitting first rank! The show began:
He said to Mr. Niggemann, that this is not ok, he should continue to
play. The clocks were started and Niggemann had now the hardware
problem AND the clock and Friedel against himself. Also you could hear
the thunder built in the air.
Many Kiebitze/visitors gathered arround and Mr. Niggemann said that ce
is not able to continue play because Sparc is NOT moving because it
has definetely crashed. Friedel said that there is no SIGN that sparc
is crashed and that he is not allowed to influence the thought-process
of Sparc-module.
(BTW: This crash-bug was well-known in the scene !!! Of course
Friedel, who does not know much about computerchess, was unable to see
that this BUG is a normal behaviour for SPARC module.)
Mr. Niggemann told Friedel that he is unable to continue game, so he
had to resign. Friedel said that Mr. Niggemann is not allowed to
resign. Suddenly Friedels voice raised. He spoke english and with a
high-pitched voice he cried: DAVID ?!?
And looked arround. David Levy came. Now Friedel tried to explain Levy
the whole stuff from his wrong point of view.
Again the said Mr.Niggemann should continue. The TONE this was said
was not polite. It was more an imperative, I mean:
AN ORDER !!
Mr. Niggemann got a red skin ! He said that this is the stupist thing
he had ever heard. And that friedel behaves like a King giving oders
to his citizens and that HE is not Friedels slave and is not willing
to let this tone continue. He said: what shall I do. I cannot repair
machine. Its a hardware failure. Shall I take a soldering iron and
work in the hardware ?!
Friedel: Mr. Niggemann! I want you to continue the game !
Niggemann: I can't continue the game ! The machine is broken. It has
crahshed several times, I want to resign. I am in charge for SAITEK
and I decide that I want to resign because of technical problems.
Friedel: Mr. Niggemann: You cannot decide. Only the machine can
resign. I want you to continue the game.
Niggemann: I don't let you command my actions. You are not the person
to direct my actions.
Friedle: Mr Niggemann. Continue the game.
Suddenly Niggemann broke the interface cable off the interface card
into 2 pieces, Was very upset. Showed it Friedel and said:
Here, you see I have broken the machine !! Now it is REALLY broken.
It cannot continue to play anyway.
Friedel said something with: this will have consequences and the whole
stuff was over with much rumors and many adrenalin in the air.
Mchess won in a weaker position.
I was - like visiting a theather - in a nice play.
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
: >mclane wrote:
: >bruce
Interesting discussion. What I don't see is what was going on. IE,
you mentioned something about a bogus adjudication? Or is this a
different game than the above?
what did Friedel have to do with this event? I wasn't involved in micro
events, so what was his function? Was David the TD or who?
The rules are clear, however, and the following has been around for
a long time:
1. the operator can't resign for the program, and that's not new. So
he was right there.
2. the operator is not allowed to "poke" the machine on occasion to
see if it is alive and well. That's why most of us have some sort of
dynamic display that clearly shows us if the machine is up or down,
because the rules prevent us hitting the return key every 15 seconds.
However, the program can (as crafty does) hiccup something every 15
seconds just to show it's doing something.
So, the case was very vague. You apparently tried to do the right thing. I
broke the rules a few years ago with John Stanback, same sort of circumstance,
and gave him a chance to fix a bug in what appeared to be a drawn position,
but which we would have trivially won on time by the rules. We actually won
by finding some deep tactics later, but it was not legal. But it seemed
right to both of us.
However, to my knowledge, friedel has not been a TD, so I don't see what he
was involved in this for at all. David should have told him to buzz off
and then handled things as best he could according to the rules.
However, this is not grounds for incriminating the entire ICCA. At best,
Ed Schroder
From: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
Thorsten this is an incredible story!
I missed all this, this is what I remember from Munich 1993.
If memory serves me well I can't remember that Fred Friedel ever was
related to the ICCA. I checked the latest ICCA journal, I didn't see
his name, but I could be wrong?
To my best knowledge Friedel was the main organizer of the WCM tournament
nothing more nothing less and he did a very good job concerning this.
As far as I remember the first rounds the "Tournament Director" (TD) was
Jaap v/d Herik. Later (round 4/5/6?) David Levy came and took over the
TD role OR Jaap and David exchanged the TD role from day to day.
Anyway I can't understand what Friedel has to do with this game. He was
not the TD or was he in this particular round?
In your story I simply MISS what the TD decided.
What did David or Jaap decide?
Or was it already too late then?
: Suddenly Niggemann broke the interface cable off the interface card
: into 2 pieces, Was very upset. Showed it Friedel and said:
: Here, you see I have broken the machine !! Now it is REALLY broken.
: It cannot continue to play anyway.
Well Guenter should have been only focused on the TD in stead of Friedel!
But I can understand his emotions.
: Friedel said something with: this will have consequences and the whole
: stuff was over with much rumors and many adrenalin in the air.
: Mchess won in a weaker position.
It's a horrible story, however I see only 2 errors:
- Guenter only had a responsibility to the TD and to nobody else.
- The TD in charge had to be much more clear in this situation.
The TD is the big boss, he decides, that's his job.
Let's hope such things will never happen again.
- Ed Schroder -
brucemo
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >Why was this game adjudicated as a win for black? And why are you,
> >who was operating the winning program, still angry about this after
> >three years?
>
> >bruce
> When will u understand th@ some people have other values than u as
> 1-dimensional defender of ICCA?!
>
> Just gimmi a short answer: a) next week or b) in 2001?
What in blazes are you talking about? I'm just asking Thorsten what happened.
There's nothing else intended by the question than this.
bruce
Tom C. Kerrigan
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
> I had to operate Mchess!
> Sparc had problems to continue game. Crashed any 15 minutes. Crash was
> not easy to detect. It computed without any sign that it is crashed!
> So: operatot tried out if it is crashed by pressing PLAY button.
> If no reaction, then it was crashed. But 15 minutes or even more
> waisted !!
Woah!
David Levy made it very clear to me first round of the '95 WMCCC
tournament that a "crash" is when the program absolutely stops working.
Segmentation fault, divide by 0, etc.
I lost the first round due to a minor design flaw in the Sun timing
libraries. Every other programmer at the event thought I should have been
allowed to fix my guy (which would have taken all of five keystrokes) but
Levy absolutely insisted that I not do anything because the program was
still thinking.
Now I hear this story, where the operator was allowed to press a button
every once in a while to make sure his charge was still "alive" and fix it
as necessary.
Well, brillant.
Cheers,
Tom
Robert Hyatt
Tom C. Kerrigan (kerr...@merlin.pn.org) wrote:
: mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: > I had to operate Mchess!
: > Sparc had problems to continue game. Crashed any 15 minutes. Crash was
: > not easy to detect. It computed without any sign that it is crashed!
: > So: operatot tried out if it is crashed by pressing PLAY button.
: > If no reaction, then it was crashed. But 15 minutes or even more
: > waisted !!
: Woah!
: David Levy made it very clear to me first round of the '95 WMCCC
: tournament that a "crash" is when the program absolutely stops working.
: Segmentation fault, divide by 0, etc.
: I lost the first round due to a minor design flaw in the Sun timing
: libraries. Every other programmer at the event thought I should have been
: allowed to fix my guy (which would have taken all of five keystrokes) but
: Levy absolutely insisted that I not do anything because the program was
: still thinking.
: Now I hear this story, where the operator was allowed to press a button
: every once in a while to make sure his charge was still "alive" and fix it
: as necessary.
: Well, brillant.
: Cheers,
: Tom
I don't think he was "allowed"... he just "did it." I've lost at least one
or two ACM games for the same reason. The program was hung, and there was no
evidence that anything had crashed, just that the program was doing "something."
That's always been the rule so far as I know... no extraneous keystrokes. No
correcting the chess clock unless prompted by the program... etc. The TD
probably could have simply forfeited both programs in that game, since the
operators were operating outside the rules. However, it sounds like the TD
couldn't really do anything since it sounds like the tournament was played in
two separate rooms where he couldn't be watching both groups at the same time
and notice something was "up"...
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>: >mclane wrote:
snip
>However, to my knowledge, friedel has not been a TD, so I don't see what he
>was involved in this for at all. David should have told him to buzz off
>and then handled things as best he could according to the rules.
>However, this is not grounds for incriminating the entire ICCA. At best,
>David screwed up as I suspect he must have been the TD, but I'm not sure.
>At worst, Friedel injected himself where he didn't belong. I'm not aware
>of the details so can't quite figure out what his part was in this saga.
>I'll accept your explanation, but it would be nice to know how he got into
>the loop...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob, all this *however*, *at worst*, *I'm not sure* and so on. What do you want
to say? That you don't know nothing? Right? But that you are eager to defend
any possible critic of ICCA. Right?
I think we did understand that you are defendant of ICCA. Not a bad job BTW.
But what about those *facts* or *posts* you thought I had overlooked???
I asked you to mail them. But you didn't react. Did Tony the king of ICCA
really write about Jakarta, the mass murder, the sponsors money from whom
exactly, how much, the hundreds of thousand k i l l e d in indonesia, the
scandal about the non-participation of some teams because of political reasons,
the thoughtful critics here in rgcc about all that??
I couldn't read all this from Tony. The elected president of ICCA who sent me
email last week. :) He surely wrote a lot of posts about these important topics
as well, no? I mean, if you compare this mistake about Tony/Davis with this
mass murder in indonesia I'm almost sure that Tony did write about that as many
lines he spent for me ...
Bob, everybody knows you ARE near by / next to ICCA. Could you please answer
these simple requests for copies of Sir Tony's posts?
IGM* Rolf Tueschen
* (IGM= Irongrandman, that means a man who has done a triple Ironman!)
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't see your answer. :(
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >: brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
: >: >mclane wrote:
: snip
: >However, to my knowledge, friedel has not been a TD, so I don't see what he
: >was involved in this for at all. David should have told him to buzz off
: >and then handled things as best he could according to the rules.
: >However, this is not grounds for incriminating the entire ICCA. At best,
: >David screwed up as I suspect he must have been the TD, but I'm not sure.
: >At worst, Friedel injected himself where he didn't belong. I'm not aware
: >of the details so can't quite figure out what his part was in this saga.
: >I'll accept your explanation, but it would be nice to know how he got into
: >the loop...
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Bob, all this *however*, *at worst*, *I'm not sure* and so on. What do you want
: to say? That you don't know nothing? Right? But that you are eager to defend
: any possible critic of ICCA. Right?
No... Frederick's involvement was not what I was interested in. I was in-
terested in what the TD had to say and how he ruled. Morally, your actions
might have been correct. Technically they were badly incorrect. Players can
*not* stop the clock under any circumstance without the TD's approval. That
rule applies to human chess games, computer chess games, etc. Therefore, the
circumstances were difficult.
The operators can have no influence in the games. This has been a continual
problem in the WMCCC events. Multiple entries from a given company allow lots
of finagling to make sure that their entry with the most points wins should two
of their programs meet. So an operator trying to resign, or punching the machine
in the back, or any such action is not permitted. Apparently your opponent was
doing so, which was another rules violation.
The TD correctly said "play on." I've been told that myself. In the first game
we played ChipTest in, I wanted to resign, but Mike said "play on, look at the
board, Bob." CB's eval was -7, the board was *dead even*. His point was that
spectators wouldn't understand the resign, even though we all agreed we were
dead lost, Mike included. We played on, without comment or aggravation, because
it was his call. It's never bothered me to have to run Mike or David down to
ask if we could call a game a draw, or if we or our opponent could resign. We
sometimes got what we wanted, we sometimes got "play on." Each "play on" resulted
in just that, and I didn't get offended. There must be no hing of any sort of
impropriety in such an event, so giving any operator any chance to influence a
result leaves things open for complaints/protests later. There have been many
"doozies" of course, which is why the rules are as they are.
: I think we did understand that you are defendant of ICCA. Not a bad job BTW.
: But what about those *facts* or *posts* you thought I had overlooked???
: I asked you to mail them. But you didn't react. Did Tony the king of ICCA
: really write about Jakarta, the mass murder, the sponsors money from whom
: exactly, how much, the hundreds of thousand k i l l e d in indonesia, the
: scandal about the non-participation of some teams because of political reasons,
: the thoughtful critics here in rgcc about all that??
Hell no, because that had nothing to do with the decision. He wrote explaining
exactly why Jakarta was chosen (only site), about the Junior problem, and kept to
the facts. The tournament wasn't a political windfall for anyone, it wasn't
a political event of any sort, it was a group of chess programmers doing battle
to see who's program was best. Sponsored by a university that seems genuinely
interested in computer chess since I've seen at least one faculty member there
operating a program on ICC regularly...
: I couldn't read all this from Tony. The elected president of ICCA who sent me
: email last week. :) He surely wrote a lot of posts about these important topics
: as well, no? I mean, if you compare this mistake about Tony/Davis with this
: mass murder in indonesia I'm almost sure that Tony did write about that as many
: lines he spent for me ...
Once more, there was no need to write about that. There was clearly enough
discussion about human rights and Indonesia. This was about chess, only chess...
and nothing but chess. The other issues were thrown in by people like yourself.
I mean, lets not ever have one in the US, because we are killing criminals right
and left with capitol punishment. Lets not have an event in china, because they
tend to kill drug dealers quickly. Not in Singapore with their inhumane caning.
Not in Germany because Hitler once lived there. Not in Mexico, too much drug
traffic. I wonder if we could find any place that's "squeaky clean"??? I doubt
it.
: Bob, everybody knows you ARE near by / next to ICCA. Could you please answer
: these simple requests for copies of Sir Tony's posts?
All you have to do is visit Deja news... Or read the ICCA Journal, as what
he wrote there was about what he posted here...
: IGM* Rolf Tueschen
Rolf Tueschen
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
snip
>Ich verstehe alle deine Besorgnisse Rolf. Ich moechte dich nur bitten,
>solche Betitelungen wie Gazoline-Bob und andere Dinge wegzulassen.
>Es enstellt deine Aeusserungen sehr, und bringt letztendlich nichts.
>Man muss auch einen Gegner respektieren. Ich sage das nicht, ohne
>selbst meine Probleme damit zu haben, keine Frage. Aber ich stehe auch
>nicht auf üble Nachrede.
>Vielleicht ist der Kern unserer Kommunikationsschwierigkeiten ja auch
>eher ein kulturelles Problem.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wieso? Wenn Bob mir crap usw vorwirft, ich meine, wenn er mich dessen
beschuldigt, is es erlaubt.
Du kennst offensichtlich diese reaktionaere Scheisse (ja!) vom letzten Herbst
nicht richtig?! Habe woanders darueber mehr geschrieben.
Insofern ist das Wiedersehen mit Bob und Bruce auch, speziell bei solchen
politischen Themen, an diese Erinnerungen geknuepft.
Augen auf, Thorsten.
Als Schaeffer und Walker gegen Chris letztens auftauchten, hatte nie was von
denen gelesen die letzten Monate, wusste ich, dass sie was hatten. Aber sie
schrieben natuerlich nichts darueber. Aber das ging nach dem motto, nur mal
eben Flagge zeigen. Der andere weiss dann schon, was gemeint ist. Vielleicht
irre ich mich. Aber ich glaube ganz einfach nicht, dass Schaeffer der doofe
Professor sein soll, der das mit dieser logischen Falle nicht gekannt haben
soll ... Chris hat da falsche Punkte gemacht. IMHO. :)
mclane
kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>> I had to operate Mchess!
>> Sparc had problems to continue game. Crashed any 15 minutes. Crash was
>> not easy to detect. It computed without any sign that it is crashed!
>> So: operatot tried out if it is crashed by pressing PLAY button.
>> If no reaction, then it was crashed. But 15 minutes or even more
>> waisted !!
>Woah!
>David Levy made it very clear to me first round of the '95 WMCCC
>tournament that a "crash" is when the program absolutely stops working.
>Segmentation fault, divide by 0, etc.
>I lost the first round due to a minor design flaw in the Sun timing
>libraries. Every other programmer at the event thought I should have been
>allowed to fix my guy (which would have taken all of five keystrokes) but
>Levy absolutely insisted that I not do anything because the program was
>still thinking.
That is what makes me very nervous !!!
Is the ICCA a monster that is against the members or is it an
organization that should work FOR the members ?????
If you are right and your program computed wrong due to design
differences of the hardware - and of course you were unable to know
this when you programmed the code before, at home -
why should you not be allowed to fix this problem if all other
participants WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CASE AND KNOWLEDEG ABOUT
SPARC-STATIONS do share this opinion. I mean:
Is LEVY ablte to decide about this fact without KNOWING about
design-problems in the Sparc station ?
In my opinon their should have been a fair way of finding out about
the problem.
Rules are not AGAINST the people, they were written down to HELP the
people.
In your case is was a kind of discrimimation by Levy. The same in the
mentioned Friedel / Niggemann event.
I could tell about Van den Herik doing the same nasty stuff with
adjudications in munich.
In the one case they insists on rules (although all others who
UNDERSTAND about do accept exception that you should repair this
time-problem) and in the other case they do whatever they want.
Important is in my opinion if it works and leads to a peaceful result.
But - as examples show - it was not peaceful or brilliant or very
democratic or whatever. That is my critics on them. Not more, not
less.
I don't hate the people, I do not attack the PEOPLE. I have critics
against the things they say or do.
Nothing to take it personal.
>Now I hear this story, where the operator was allowed to press a button
>every once in a while to make sure his charge was still "alive" and fix it
>as necessary.
>Well, brillant.
>Cheers,
>Tom
Don't mix it up !
* WE * (or me) in absence of THEM (ICCA) came to the arrangement that
he should check about the fact IF Sparc is still alive.
In fact it was me who told Guenter: Guenter, I think your machine has
crashed.
I know very good about Saitek Leonardo/Renaissance machines.
I have these machines at home and always did test them in many hours.
Also Mr. Niggemann is an expert and a very accurate person.
No one of us tried to cheat.
We just wanted to find a way out.
Saitek had paid much money (as a commericial participant) in munich.
Although I am on the side of amateurs or small companies I am not that
HATRED (like some people always mention) that I cannot behave fair to
opponents or ideologic enemies.
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>I don't think he was "allowed"... he just "did it." I've lost at least one
>or two ACM games for the same reason. The program was hung, and there was no
>evidence that anything had crashed, just that the program was doing "something."
Right.
Although it is an unwirtten rule that almost all operators know A WAY
of managing things.
>That's always been the rule so far as I know... no extraneous keystrokes. No
>correcting the chess clock unless prompted by the program... etc. The TD
>probably could have simply forfeited both programs in that game, since the
>operators were operating outside the rules. However, it sounds like the TD
>couldn't really do anything since it sounds like the tournament was played in
>two separate rooms where he couldn't be watching both groups at the same time
>and notice something was "up"...
Thats true. But I am not thinking that Levy is not big enough to find
a peaceful agreement for anybody. I don't think that Levy is not MAN
enough to handle this kind of situations.
At Paderborn I have seen him handle another situation (game between
CSTal and Hiarcs).
I was related to BOTH programs and BOTH programmers and ALSO related
to the operator of Hiarcs.
SO: he sat next to me, and I had the feeling he is a nice guy and is
not a snob or will do nasty things AGAINST all participants.
He was very polite, also I registered that Tony Marsland is a nice
polite guy.
I had a good feeling after meeting both.
Bob - please don't think that hatred or personal stuff is my target.
Misbehaviour is not always a one direction-street. If Friedel would
not have reacted like an ape, Niggemann would not have done this
forbidden *nasty* thing.
I don't think that we have done something forbidden.
If - e.g. in a soccer game - there is a foul and the enemy is kicking
the ball into the crowd to show sportsmenlike:
We don't want to have an advantage because one of your
people is injured, we want to give a pause that you can help him.
Let us do a break...
I think this is maybe not allowed but ok.
It is very different break of the rules like the foul itself.
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
As I said, right wrong or indifferent, I broke the rules once myself, because
I was more interested in seeing how Cray Blitz would play out an ending that
was probably going to be drawn, but we could all see a very long winning plan
that we were Sure CB couldn't find, because of the repetition of positions
that were blocking it's every path... I never regretted the decision, because
I'd known John for several years at that point, and thought it was more in
line with my goals to see the machines play it out... we got to play Cray
Blitz in so few games, that a time forfeit was really not an interesting or
useful outcome...
You never know...
Tom C. Kerrigan
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
> Wieso? Wenn Bob mir crap usw vorwirft, ich meine, wenn er mich dessen
> beschuldigt, is es erlaubt.
Hummm... wonder if I could say "crap" over here and be understood... not a
word I often hear in German...
If you're going to be saying things like this about Bob, at least say them
in English so he can understand.
Cheers,
Tom
brucemo
Robert Hyatt wrote:
> As I said, right wrong or indifferent, I broke the rules once myself, because
> I was more interested in seeing how Cray Blitz would play out an ending that
> was probably going to be drawn, but we could all see a very long winning plan
> that we were Sure CB couldn't find, because of the repetition of positions
> that were blocking it's every path... I never regretted the decision, because
> I'd known John for several years at that point, and thought it was more in
> line with my goals to see the machines play it out... we got to play Cray
> Blitz in so few games, that a time forfeit was really not an interesting or
> useful outcome...
You told me about this a while back, and I've thought about it since then.
Imagine that our programs are playing each other, and you are a half point out
of first place, and I'm nowhere near first place, and the guy who is in first
place is someone I don't like. This is hypothetical, of course, since I like
everyone, and also I would hope to be near first place.
Anyway, the game we're playing is probably a draw, but I'm a pawn down. I want
you to be in clear first place, so I resign, and you're there.
This is gross abuse on my part, and would not be allowed, because the TD would
say "play on", I'd hope.
Imagine that our programs are playing each other, and everything is the same as
above, except that I'm up a pawn, and you've been really slow on the clock
(remember, this is hypothetical), so you run out of time.
But I like you, and I want you to catch up to the guy who is ahead of you, and
besides, the game is interesting. So I don't call your flag, we play on, and
sure enough, my program makes a tremendous blunder (hypothetical!) and I lose
this pawn-up ending, so you are in clear first place again.
Next day the guy who you took first place from finds out about this, and lodges
a complaint, and a violent argument takes place, and the result of which is that
either I'm awarded the point in our game, or it's called a double-forfeit.
Same basic deal as the premature resignation, I think. Letting someone off the
hook in one of these games is like letting someone take cuts in front of you in
line at the supermarket, it doesn't just affect you, it affects everyone who is
behind you in line, as well.
So I think it'd be better, in general, to stick to the rules. It's hard to
foresee all of the cases where it might affect someone other than just the two
teams playing.
Probably best in this case with Stanback would be to have called the game over
at the point where you could have claimed the point, signed the scoresheets,
then played the rest out as a "friendly" game.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >> I had to operate Mchess!
: >> Sparc had problems to continue game. Crashed any 15 minutes. Crash was
: >> not easy to detect. It computed without any sign that it is crashed!
: >> So: operatot tried out if it is crashed by pressing PLAY button.
: >> If no reaction, then it was crashed. But 15 minutes or even more
: >> waisted !!
: >Woah!
: >David Levy made it very clear to me first round of the '95 WMCCC
: >tournament that a "crash" is when the program absolutely stops working.
: >Segmentation fault, divide by 0, etc.
: >I lost the first round due to a minor design flaw in the Sun timing
: >libraries. Every other programmer at the event thought I should have been
: >allowed to fix my guy (which would have taken all of five keystrokes) but
: >Levy absolutely insisted that I not do anything because the program was
: >still thinking.
: That is what makes me very nervous !!!
: Is the ICCA a monster that is against the members or is it an
: organization that should work FOR the members ?????
: If you are right and your program computed wrong due to design
: differences of the hardware - and of course you were unable to know
: this when you programmed the code before, at home -
: why should you not be allowed to fix this problem if all other
: participants WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CASE AND KNOWLEDEG ABOUT
: SPARC-STATIONS do share this opinion. I mean:
: Is LEVY ablte to decide about this fact without KNOWING about
: design-problems in the Sparc station ?
Right, however, when you enter, and you pick your own platform to run on,
it's your responsibility to be sure you are working correctly *before* the
tournament starts.
: In my opinon their should have been a fair way of finding out about
: the problem.
: Rules are not AGAINST the people, they were written down to HELP the
: people.
: In your case is was a kind of discrimimation by Levy. The same in the
: mentioned Friedel / Niggemann event.
: I could tell about Van den Herik doing the same nasty stuff with
: adjudications in munich.
I don't agree. Rounds are set up and tightly scheduled. It might not be a
2 second repair... it might be an hour... and then the next round can't start
on time, unless this game is started early. You simply show up with a program
that works if you want to do well. If you show up with bugs, it can be expensive,
either for you if you lose because of it, or for the rest of the tourament if
you don't. In my case, for example, I had to carefully schedule Cray machine
time with Cray. If a round were delayed 1 hour, we couldn't extend our scheduled
time by one hour, we just ran into a "wall" and had to force adjudication. That's
not good either...
There's lots of problems in these events. Exceptions can't disrupt everything...
: In the one case they insists on rules (although all others who
: UNDERSTAND about do accept exception that you should repair this
: time-problem) and in the other case they do whatever they want.
: Important is in my opinion if it works and leads to a peaceful result.
: But - as examples show - it was not peaceful or brilliant or very
: democratic or whatever. That is my critics on them. Not more, not
: less.
: I don't hate the people, I do not attack the PEOPLE. I have critics
: against the things they say or do.
: Nothing to take it personal.
: >Now I hear this story, where the operator was allowed to press a button
: >every once in a while to make sure his charge was still "alive" and fix it
: >as necessary.
: >Well, brillant.
: >Cheers,
: >Tom
: Don't mix it up !
: * WE * (or me) in absence of THEM (ICCA) came to the arrangement that
: he should check about the fact IF Sparc is still alive.
: In fact it was me who told Guenter: Guenter, I think your machine has
: crashed.
: I know very good about Saitek Leonardo/Renaissance machines.
: I have these machines at home and always did test them in many hours.
: Also Mr. Niggemann is an expert and a very accurate person.
: No one of us tried to cheat.
In *that* tourament, perhaps. However, there have been several instances of
cheating in past events. The rules were modified each time to close a loophole
that caused problems. You simply ran afoul of specific rules that were created
to prevent the operators from determining a result on their own..
: We just wanted to find a way out.
Robert Hyatt
brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: bruce
I agree. In my case, CB was in 2nd... and a win or draw would have kept it
there... and John was not going to win either... My analysis was that what
we did did not affect the outcome, and no matter what happened it wouldn't,
except for the case if we lost, but that would have only hurt us and helped
others....
Probably shouldn't have done it, but at the time... :)
Tom C. Kerrigan
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
> If you are right and your program computed wrong due to design
> differences of the hardware - and of course you were unable to know
> this when you programmed the code before, at home -
> why should you not be allowed to fix this problem if all other
> participants WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CASE AND KNOWLEDEG ABOUT
> SPARC-STATIONS do share this opinion. I mean:
> Is LEVY ablte to decide about this fact without KNOWING about
> design-problems in the Sparc station ?
The argument is that it was my decision to use the Sparc and my
responsibility to port it correctly.
I agree with this, to a point.
If I had a serious porting problem and the program core dumped, then I
would have been given a chance to fix it. But nooo, I had an absolutely
minor problem with a trivial fix, so I lost the game.
As far as I know, every programmer and a few spectators who heard about
the problem at the time argued my case with Levy for me. I do not think
Levy is an evil man, but I do think he's arrogant to ignore the advice of
so many people who are obviously an order of magnatude more technically
compitent than he is. If I were in his shoes at the time, I would have at
least consulted with other high-ups...
Cheers,
Tom
Amir Ban
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Finally the Junior case.
>
> Shay and Amir did ask for visa directly after inscribing. Mr. Bunawan
> from Gunadarma university told wrongly that the were no visa for
> israelis. Wrong because Tony - living in Canada - asked the indonesian
> consulate in Vancouver. They told him of a little technical problem.
> The two had to go to f. i. Amman to get their visa.
> More so because Shay also has an american passprt (!).
> But at this moment the two amateurs *discovered* that they had to pay
> extremly expensive luxury fees for foreign voyages - - for reaching
> Amsterdam. Because the didn't feel welcomed in indonesia without that
> they decided to retire.
>
> Not a single word of playing via internet.
>
> For me some questions about Junior have been answered. It was not art
> all the visa or indonesian governement story that prevented Junior
> playing rhe Wch.
>
> Moneymoney makes the world go round.
>
[snip]
> Rolf
>
> ---------------------------------
The Junior team wishes to say:
We have not seen this article, do not know what it says, do not know what its sources
are, and were never approached for comment by any newsletter. From the above rambling
post it's difficult to understand who says what. In any case some facts need to be set
right (yet again):
- Indonesia does not as a rule grant visas to Israelis. You may apply if you wish of
course. From at least 4 sources, including the above-mentioned Vancouver consulate, it
is known that an invitation by a local organization is necessary. No such invitation
was offered.
- No financial issue was ever raised by the Junior team, nor did it play any part in
our decisions. We are glad to report to the readers of this newsgroup that our personal
financial situation is OK and we could afford the trip to Jakarta.
- There is no luxury tax. Probably thinking of travel tax, which was abolished 1992 or
earlier.
Amir
brucemo
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> >> When will u understand th@ some people have other values than u as
> >> 1-dimensional defender of ICCA?!
> >>
> >> Just gimmi a short answer: a) next week or b) in 2001?
>
> >What in blazes are you talking about? I'm just asking Thorsten what happened.
> > There's nothing else intended by the question than this.
>
> >bruce
>
> I can't see your answer. :(
And I asked you why your question was on-topic, and you didn't answer that. I
just asked for more specifics about the incident, I have no idea why this caused
you to spit and snarl at me.
bruce
brucemo
> : kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
> : >David Levy made it very clear to me first round of the '95 WMCCC
> : >tournament that a "crash" is when the program absolutely stops working.
> : >Segmentation fault, divide by 0, etc.
>
> : >I lost the first round due to a minor design flaw in the Sun timing
> : >libraries. Every other programmer at the event thought I should have been
> : >allowed to fix my guy (which would have taken all of five keystrokes) but
> : >Levy absolutely insisted that I not do anything because the program was
> : >still thinking.
thorsten czub wrote:
> hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> >Right, however, when you enter, and you pick your own platform to run on,
> >it's your responsibility to be sure you are working correctly *before* the
> >tournament starts.
>
> When I remember Paderborn right, Tom did not know about the difference
> and he was unable to test before, because he came later or of some
> circumstances. But I don't remember this precisely. Maybe Tom knows
> better. Was there enough time for you to find out in advance, Tom ?
The above is somewhat pieced together because I Bob actually managed to snip too
much out, I think, so I had to retrieve some stuff from another post.
Here is my recollection.
I got in a couple of days before the tourney and Tom got in after that, so he
was pressed for time, since his program didn't run on a Sparc (or at least this
kind of a Sparc) until he got there.
He did some huge amount of work the day before the tournament, and on the day of
(!) the tournament, which is dubious, but he didn't have a heck of a lot of
choice, and he almost pulled it off.
The "flaw" we are referring to here is that this Sparc didn't count time in
milliseconds like a sane computer does, it counts time in microseconds, which
means that every hour or so the clock wraps around. I might have the details
wrong, but this is essentially what happened to Tom, the clock wrapped around,
so his program thought it was supposed to think for some huge amount of time
because suddenly things went negative on him.
When the thing refused to move, Tom quickly figured out what had gone wrong.
I'm pretty sure that this all came out in the discussion with Levy who was TD
for the first few rounds. So this is probably an uncommon instance -- a bug
whose cause and solution are known at approximately the time it is encountered.
I wasn't infolved in the fracas, but apparently Levy told Tom he couldn't fix
his program, so he lost on time.
It's kind of an odd case. Imagine trying to make the case that your program has
"crashed" if it is still sitting there spitting out nodes/second numbers and
principle variations. It's hard to call a bug like this a "crash".
I don't know if this is what happened here. Like I said, I missed the fracas.
If Tom's program just went away for half an hour, I think he should have been
able to restart it. It's harder to make this case if the thing looks like it's
in a healthy condition, but just refuses to actually make a move.
Of course, I have seen with my own eyes cases where a programmer simply declares
his program to be crashed, and without further question the tournament director
authorizes a restart. No messages on the screen, nothing.
Perhaps this points out a problem with the rules. Maybe if you crash, you lose,
at least in the microcomputer event. It might be harder to enforce this in the
open event, since there are communication failures that happen, and these
shouldn't be fatal, even though they appear exactly like a crash.
I worry that I'll lose a point this way, but it would certainly stop this sort
of dispute, and would encourage better software engineering.
bruce
Rolf Tueschen
kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
>Cheers,
>Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. -- hear the southern accent? --
It was just a reaction on a *german* question/comment.
Bob never reacted on things ike that. And that's good so. And here Bob wasn't
adressed to at all, ok? It was metatalk.
Don't let you be put into *Oberlehrerbruesten*. :)) Or as we say it, don't try
to be *oberschlau*. Did you know these two? (Herr Ober?)
Tom, gimmi some info about your studies here. Yes?
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
>: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>Right, however, when you enter, and you pick your own platform to run on,
>it's your responsibility to be sure you are working correctly *before* the
>tournament starts.
When I remember Paderborn right, Tom did not know about the difference
and he was unable to test before, because he came later or of some
circumstances. But I don't remember this precisely. Maybe Tom knows
better. Was there enough time for you to find out in advance, Tom ?
>: Rules are not AGAINST the people, they were written down to HELP the
>: people.
>: In your case is was a kind of discrimimation by Levy. The same in the
>: mentioned Friedel / Niggemann event.
>: I could tell about Van den Herik doing the same nasty stuff with
>: adjudications in munich.
>I don't agree. Rounds are set up and tightly scheduled. It might not be a
>2 second repair... it might be an hour... and then the next round can't start
>on time, unless this game is started early. You simply show up with a program
>that works if you want to do well. If you show up with bugs, it can be expensive,
>either for you if you lose because of it, or for the rest of the tourament if
>you don't. In my case, for example, I had to carefully schedule Cray machine
>time with Cray. If a round were delayed 1 hour, we couldn't extend our scheduled
>time by one hour, we just ran into a "wall" and had to force adjudication. That's
>not good either...
Here is agree. You are right. Please don't think that my critics are
done because I want to demolish the event or want to destroy icca.
I like computerchess. I like the events. But I would like to discuss
afterwards (!!!) if something happens or happened that I don't
understand/like.
Now it is 1997 and I would like to ask WHY this happens 1993.
I don't want to disturb the championship 1993 with critics.
>There's lots of problems in these events. Exceptions can't disrupt everything...
Here I totally confirm. Please see that I don't have distrubed the
event 1993 or discussed much there.
>: >Well, brillant.
>: >Cheers,
>: >Tom
Right. Here I agree too. But modified from day to day ? In this
difficult topic ?
mclane
kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
>> Wieso? Wenn Bob mir crap usw vorwirft, ich meine, wenn er mich dessen
>> beschuldigt, is es erlaubt.
>Hummm... wonder if I could say "crap" over here and be understood... not a
>word I often hear in German...
>If you're going to be saying things like this about Bob, at least say them
>in English so he can understand.
>Cheers,
>Tom
I have tried enough and still try to talk with him in HIS language. He
does not understand anything. Why should I continue in HIS language
when he is not willing or able to understand. Maybe my language is
wron. Maybe I am not able to speak english. Therefore he can now learn
german and read my german. This way he cannot misunderstand me
anymore, because my geman is not to misunderstand ! :-)
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>As I said, right wrong or indifferent, I broke the rules once myself, because
>I was more interested in seeing how Cray Blitz would play out an ending that
>was probably going to be drawn, but we could all see a very long winning plan
>that we were Sure CB couldn't find, because of the repetition of positions
>that were blocking it's every path... I never regretted the decision, because
>I'd known John for several years at that point, and thought it was more in
>line with my goals to see the machines play it out... we got to play Cray
>Blitz in so few games, that a time forfeit was really not an interesting or
>useful outcome...
>You never know...
Right. And in the Friedel-Niggemann case I did not refer to the
decision, I referred to THE WAY FRIEDEL (if he was in charge anyway)
MANAGED THIS CASE. I am sure that Levy would have done different.
Also in the van den Herik cases I am sure that Levy would have
adjudicated more sensible.
This is my only point.
mclane
Dear Bruce,
imagine Ferret plays a long game against shredder. You are programmer
AND operator of ferret. It is munich, 1993 and we play on a
championship.
Imagine Shredder has a technical won position but is not making any
progress for at least 50 moves. Than a pawn is moved.
Another 50 moves nothing happens. Shredder is still in advance.
Now the referee Jaap can den Herik comes and says:
Oh - I have to adjudicate this game.
Let's see. Ferret is in a technical lost position. We adjudicate for
CHESS , not for programming algorithms.
Sorry Bruce, but you lost the game !!
Next day:
Ferret has to play against Fritz.
Ferret is in a better position but is not making any progress.
But - Bruce is very cool because some chess friends with big elo told
him: from the point of view of a chess player, this position is
technically WON by White = Ferret.
Yesterday you learned that Van den Herik adjudicates for CHESS aspects
and not for programming-details.
Now he comes to the board.
He says: Oh - your Ferret is not making any advantage against Fritz,
isn't it ? And he smiles to the Fritz - team .
I have to adjudicate. Bruce smiles ! He remembers yesterday !
Suddenly Jaap asks a strange question, that makes Bruce instantly red
skinned, because he does not know what to answer:
Is your program able to win thin won technical endgame ?
Does it know about the position ?
What shall you answer ? The truth (Ferret has NO special code and is
NOT understanding the position) or a lie (YES ! IT HAS THE CODE and
will win).
You say honest: No - I don't kow what it plays. But it has no special
code for this.
Jaap smiles and says: ok. Then I adjudicate that Ferret again loses !
Bruce turns into green skin. WHAAAAAAT ?
Yesterday I lost because Shredder had a technical won position
and although it was unable to win the game, you adjudicated a loss for
me, now I would like to get an adjudication for the same rules !!!
But Van den Herik is the big boss. As Don Beal claimed, the big boss
is always right. Whatever you now can say against it.
The programmer - in this fantasy-case YOU, Bruce, wants to convince
Van den Herik that this is unfair, yesterday the decision was against
me and today it is again against me. One day you decide on
chess-knowledge, the other day on programming knowledge. WHY ?
Now the situation raises. Van den Herik gets louder and says:
I will take an hour and discuss with you, but whatever we do, my
decision is the same.
What would Bruce say NOW ?
I think I know what Don Beal would say: that you only critic Van den
Herik because you have something against him.
He would suppose that Bruce has a bad reputation at all and that you
fuight a personal war, and that this situation is just another of your
ideas to damage Van den Heriks reputation. And he would say:
Van den Herik is a brave man.
This is what happened in munich 1993. The only point is that it was
not well known, nobody liked to speak much about it. It was never
printed in any magazine, and it was just ONE CASE.
And now I am criticised because I do tell these situations happen ?
Why is it wrong to ask for the reasons that this happens ?
Why is it forbidden and why is this not allowed here ?
I am not the only person who has SEEN and heard these thing happen.
But in the one case I operated Mchess I was not attacked by Friedel,
but Niggemann was. In the second case with van den Herik again I was
not involved, it was the programmer of the program who would have the
right to critic on this decision. But the thing happened.
Although no print-media wrote about it.
And there are more cases....this is just the peak of the iceberg.
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >: kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
: >: >mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: >Right, however, when you enter, and you pick your own platform to run on,
: >it's your responsibility to be sure you are working correctly *before* the
: >tournament starts.
: When I remember Paderborn right, Tom did not know about the difference
: and he was unable to test before, because he came later or of some
: circumstances. But I don't remember this precisely. Maybe Tom knows
: better. Was there enough time for you to find out in advance, Tom ?
Yes. In fact, I compiled and ran Stobor a couple of times on one of my
Sparcs for him. He'd send an automated script, I'd run it, and send the
results back... Apparently what he tested didn't thouroughly test the
timing code however... which is an easy mistake to make...
Been there myself...
: >: Rules are not AGAINST the people, they were written down to HELP the
: >: people.
: >: In your case is was a kind of discrimimation by Levy. The same in the
: >: mentioned Friedel / Niggemann event.
: >: I could tell about Van den Herik doing the same nasty stuff with
: >: adjudications in munich.
: >I don't agree. Rounds are set up and tightly scheduled. It might not be a
: >2 second repair... it might be an hour... and then the next round can't start
: >on time, unless this game is started early. You simply show up with a program
: >that works if you want to do well. If you show up with bugs, it can be expensive,
: >either for you if you lose because of it, or for the rest of the tourament if
: >you don't. In my case, for example, I had to carefully schedule Cray machine
: >time with Cray. If a round were delayed 1 hour, we couldn't extend our scheduled
: >time by one hour, we just ran into a "wall" and had to force adjudication. That's
: >not good either...
: Here is agree. You are right. Please don't think that my critics are
: done because I want to demolish the event or want to destroy icca.
: I like computerchess. I like the events. But I would like to discuss
: afterwards (!!!) if something happens or happened that I don't
: understand/like.
: Now it is 1997 and I would like to ask WHY this happens 1993.
: I don't want to disturb the championship 1993 with critics.
You ought to have posed this in 1993. I've participated in adjudications, because
I've played chess for a long time. I've sat at a board with Mike Valvo, and Danny
Kopec, and others, and we would try over and over and over to see if there's any
winning line, and then if there's any defense to that, and so forth. If a game
was really adjudicated as you say, you ought to have raised hell... that would
clearly be contrary to *every written policy* of ICCA sanctioned events, which
clearly states that adjudication is based on perfect play, period. Not on whether
the program can win the game or not.
If you can find the position, I'd like to see it and analyze it. I'll give you
my opinion of the adjudication, and will also ask a couple of GM friends to look
at it with me if it's difficult. And I'll report back here with *exactly* what
we believe. If it was wrong, we can at least make sure that the ICCA doesn't let
that person adjudicate or TD another event of any kind. But it's better to first
study the position, *then* make a determination. I'm willing to look, however...
I think I'd prefer a PGN game file if you can, as then I can let Crafty help me
study it easier, as well as feed it to a server to get a GM to study it with me..
: >There's lots of problems in these events. Exceptions can't disrupt everything...
pit...@aol.com
Thema: Re: CSS Article Translation Oct 24
Von: mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane)
Datum: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:59:57 GMT
Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Thorsten this is an incredible story!
>>I missed all this, this is what I remember from Munich 1993.
>>If memory serves me well I can't remember that Fred Friedel ever was
>>related to the ICCA. I checked the latest ICCA journal, I didn't see
>>his name, but I could be wrong?
>>To my best knowledge Friedel was the main organizer of the WCM tournament
>>nothing more nothing less and he did a very good job concerning this.
>Right. Ossi Weiner's company had anniversary / jubilee and so he said:
>We will found if it will happen here in munich.
>Computerschach and Spiele helped organising the championship.
>There were even more unbelievable NASTY and shameful things that
>charge for these things.
>E.g. some people of the HELPING-team that should try to organize and
>HELP tried to SEPARATE one of their members and throw him out of the
>team and out of the hotel.
>His name was Jens-Schmidt-Wilke. A nice guy who is known for his
>articles in computerschach & spiele where he tries himself in games by
>his own to beat the programs , commenting his efforts/games and gives
>a rating or an evaluation of the products.
>I was totally shocked when I found some guys in the HELPING team in
>their effort of throwing him out of the tournament because of some
>silly jealously stuff against him. Some testers were jealous because
>Jens was a chess-player or whatever.
>For me he was really a nice guy, and one could speak with him in a
>nice waqy about chess and programs because he knew about chess.
>Isn't it shocking when an organisation like Computerschach & Spiele
>invites somebody and then tries to throw this guy out of the
>tournament + hotel ?!
>Maybe somebody else can tell us more about this unbelievable thing.
>Maybe Jens himself.
>>As far as I remember the first rounds the "Tournament Director" (TD) was
>>Jaap v/d Herik. Later (round 4/5/6?) David Levy came and took over the
>>TD role OR Jaap and David exchanged the TD role from day to day.
>Ok-. David Levy is a chess player and knows about chess AND
>computerchess. But what is Friedel's qualification ?
>He knows somebody who knows something. That is all.
>>Anyway I can't understand what Friedel has to do with this game. He was
>>not the TD or was he in this particular round?
>
>He was in the same hotel, that's enough. The whole tournament he
>behaved as is HE is the boss and we are the visitors.
>He wanted to let us know about this HIS perspective of the world.
>I call this narcistic or arrogant or idle.
>>In your story I simply MISS what the TD decided.
>>What did David or Jaap decide?
>There was no right decision because Niggemann was that much AFFECTED
>by the attacks of friedel that HE DECIDED TO BRAKE the dedicated
>machine in 2 pieces.
>So in the end he destroyed his machine because he wanted to get rid of
>Friedel. Unbelievable , if you think about it, but on the other hand
>very human, compaired to the situation.
>In my opinon it is not randomn that THIS *EVENT* was not reported in
>the article of Frederic Friedel.
>I have seen this kind of unsound overreaction by Jan van den Herik in
>the same tournament. Maybe some people were often drunken at this
>event :-)
Thorsten please remember what happened before the final match between MChess - Genius in Paderborn !!!! Also not a good reaction by Mr. van den Herik .......:-((
-Peter
>>Or was it already too late then?
>IMO the game was over and lost for Sparc because of technical problems
>or whatever. I don't know anymore. Of course it was TOO late.
>Although Levy was called by Friedel and arrived, that was the reason
>Friedel suddenly spoke ENGLISH to us although both participants were
>german and also Friedel is german (if he is german. I don't know if he
>is german. But - of course he should be able to understand and speak
>german).
>>: Suddenly Niggemann broke the interface cable off the interface card
>>: into 2 pieces, Was very upset. Showed it Friedel and said:
>>: Here, you see I have broken the machine !! Now it is REALLY broken.
>>: It cannot continue to play anyway.
>>Well Guenter should have been only focused on the TD in stead of Friedel!
>>But I can understand his emotions.
>Yeah! My *friendship* to Guenter Niggemann began this day.
>Thanks Frederic !!
>Your arrogant behaviour is not negative at all.
>>: Friedel said something with: this will have consequences and the whole
>>: stuff was over with much rumors and many adrenalin in the air.
>>: Mchess won in a weaker position.
>>It's a horrible story, however I see only 2 errors:
>>- Guenter only had a responsibility to the TD and to nobody else.
>>- The TD in charge had to be much more clear in this situation.
>But this IS the main criticism of me, about the ICCA. They normally DO
>NO CLEAR DECISIONS in no case. Not concerning the money, not
>concerning the rules/laws, not concenring anything.
>Just a bunch of people who decide spontaneously !!
>>The TD is the big boss, he decides, that's his job.
>>Let's hope such things will never happen again.
>>- Ed Schroder -
>Oh - it was quite amusing. Also it made an ape out of friedel.
>I would call it a good job ! :-)
>No - you are right. This is not computerchess at it's best.
>It is a pity that this was not the only munich-disaster.
>I have missed these things in the editorial of computerschach & spiele
>or in the reports in CSS. Instead they printed lyrics written by Mader
>(or was it Mally - I do always mix them up).
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>You ought to have posed this in 1993. I've participated in adjudications, because
>I've played chess for a long time. I've sat at a board with Mike Valvo, and Danny
>Kopec, and others, and we would try over and over and over to see if there's any
>winning line, and then if there's any defense to that, and so forth. If a game
>was really adjudicated as you say, you ought to have raised hell... that would
>clearly be contrary to *every written policy* of ICCA sanctioned events, which
>clearly states that adjudication is based on perfect play, period. Not on whether
>the program can win the game or not.
I don't want to post this. I was no member of the ICCA that time. I
was a nobody. Why should I post it, when I was not involved.
The programmers could have posted it. But they never did.
Why should I do it for them instead. Nobody would believe me that this
is NOT AN ATTACK !!!
They would have all said: Why is HE posting something the programmers
don't post. Now I have the mess. Nobody will ever believe me that i
have not posted it to piss on Van den Herik or Levy or whoever.
>If you can find the position, I'd like to see it and analyze it. I'll give you
>my opinion of the adjudication, and will also ask a couple of GM friends to look
>at it with me if it's difficult. And I'll report back here with *exactly* what
>we believe. If it was wrong, we can at least make sure that the ICCA doesn't let
>that person adjudicate or TD another event of any kind. But it's better to first
>study the position, *then* make a determination. I'm willing to look, however...
I will try to find out about the games. It should not be difficult
because I have cbf-files of the championship and I know the program
that was involved in munich.
>I think I'd prefer a PGN game file if you can, as then I can let Crafty help me
>study it easier, as well as feed it to a server to get a GM to study it with me..
No problems. Genius can convert CBF into PGN.
pit...@aol.com
Rolf Czedzak
mclane wrote: <E5tqE...@news.prima.ruhr.de>
m> kerr...@merlin.pn.org (Tom C. Kerrigan) wrote:
m>
m> >Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
m>
m> >> Wieso? Wenn Bob mir crap usw vorwirft, ich meine, wenn er mich
m> >> dessen beschuldigt, is es erlaubt.
m>
m> >Hummm... wonder if I could say "crap" over here and be understood...
m> >not a word I often hear in German...
m>
m> >If you're going to be saying things like this about Bob, at least say
m> >them in English so he can understand.
m>
m> >Cheers,
m> >Tom
m>
m> I have tried enough and still try to talk with him in HIS language. He
m> does not understand anything. Why should I continue in HIS language
m> when he is not willing or able to understand. Maybe my language is
m> wron. Maybe I am not able to speak english. Therefore he can now learn
m> german and read my german. This way he cannot misunderstand me
m> anymore, because my geman is not to misunderstand ! :-)
Taken the way you quote and respond, you shouldn't be too surprised when
some people think that you are another instance of the tueschen-script.
Rolf
Rolf Tueschen
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>>You never know...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mclane, the *way*???
Don't you dare to psycho-analyse ME, Bob!!
I'm not prepared for any of your non-US-American metatalks.
Speak to me in Albama or leave it.
Now I've to go fishing with my black fisher friend.
That's what Bob might have thought reading mclany's difficult post.
No, meta could never be the sister of either Bob or bruce ...
They are like straight forward cowboys in usual westerns.
Although --- mmh --- NO, for this post no remorse, straightforward ...
Rolf <First Meta IGM>
PS Just call me Lee (Cat Ballou) Marvin
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>bruce
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ... diminishing returns thread I just finished my post to BH. And because of
BH's decline to realize some sophistication in some questions/points I was
depressive for a second. Then I realized that that was the wrong reaction. Was
is not more a consequence of me being a very wise man? :)
This idea was so surprisingly making me happy that I thought to use my new
expert level for your innocence as well.
I won't follow you in the darkness of circles in circles. No, with very open
eyes one can see the main question sparkling bright in the sky:
The only question/note I made to you was criticising the insinuation of an
incongruent behaviour of Thorsten.
You asked pretending being naive why he told all that and being angry after
years AND he had WON this game in the end. You apparently couldn't understand
that.
And for me this was not at all a point. Because for me Thorsten Mclane is
really interested in the scientifical/historical truth of things. *He* doesn't
act the way you prefere, that is the way of defendend something neglecting all
points that almost cry for another point of view. He's not afraid of being
corrected. But you react like a clerk or officer who must defend the official
*truth* of other people. You still think to be strong in following the official
line. But in reality you are very weak. Sorry for having to say that. Hope you
make your Ferret as strong as possible. Best wishes.
But:
----*Man is unable not to know what he knows.* Leibowitz----
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Czedzak (r...@viking.ruhr.com) wrote:
: mclane wrote: <E5tqE...@news.prima.ruhr.de>
: Rolf
I've tried to avoid this, because it's difficult to not offend anyone, but
if several share the same name, signing something "Rolf" is confusing to
me. If we had another "Bob" posting, I'd sign things "Bob Hyatt" or something
similar. I have to be very careful when reading posts from either of you to
be sure who is saying what... Just a suggestion... :) Not intended to be
offensive or anything...
Bob [Hyatt]... :)
mclane
pit...@aol.com wrote:
>>I have seen this kind of unsound overreaction by Jan van den Herik in
>>the same tournament. Maybe some people were often drunken at this
>>event :-)
>Thorsten please remember what happened before the final match between MChess - Genius in Paderborn !!!!
> Also not a good reaction by Mr. van den Herik .......:-((
>-Peter
Yeah ! But when I post it, everybody says: mclane has something
against Van den Herik and and and and.
But that is not true. I don't have something against him, I have
something against his behaviour and decisions in the few 4-5
sample-cases I have seen myself on championships.
Now your experience fits to mine, next Don Beal will tell YOU about
the reputation of van den herik. I don't understand how they will ever
make progress if the only argument of them is to call someones
reputation as a point against our examples.
I don't care about the reputation.... if the decisions and the style
is ok. We don't need Dr. so and so's, big names and this snobistic
stuff, we need accurate and friendly decisions.
The ICCA is for the members, not vice versa.
The members pay, the ICCA organizes. Just a normal contract.
THEY MAKE a church out of ICCA, with priest like van den herik.
And a priest or a pope is never wrong and has brilliant reputation.
Also popes and priest do wrong decisions. Galileo Galilei can sing us
a song about this.
Rolf Czedzak
Robert Hyatt wrote: <5ej36e$j...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>
RH> I've tried to avoid this, because it's difficult to not offend
RH> anyone, but if several share the same name, signing something "Rolf"
RH> is confusing to me.
Could work as a starting point for another "American rgcc guru offends
german" thread. Maybe I should freeze it for a while.
RH> I have to be very careful when
RH> reading posts from either of you to be sure who is saying what...
I hope you (and anybody else) will do so.
RH> Just a suggestion... :) Not intended to be offensive or anything...
RH>
RH> Bob [Hyatt]... :)
Not intended to be anything, too
Rolf C
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Czedzak (r...@viking.ruhr.com) wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote: <5ej36e$j...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>
: RH> I've tried to avoid this, because it's difficult to not offend
: RH> anyone, but if several share the same name, signing something "Rolf"
: RH> is confusing to me.
: Could work as a starting point for another "American rgcc guru offends
: german" thread. Maybe I should freeze it for a while.
Not intended. But there's one Rolf that tends to go off the deep end
(IMHO) regarding some posts here. signing a post "Rolf" makes it necessary
to check out the header carefully.
: RH> I have to be very careful when