Missing in action (aka WMCCC)
Amir Ban
The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
- Rebel
- M-Chess
- Nimzo
- Genius
- WChess
- Kallisto
Can we please have an explanation from each why they do not choose to
attend ?
Amir
Martin Zentner
Amir Ban wrote:
> The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
> - Nimzo
Nimzo will be playing as Hydra.
-Martin
--
Martin Zentner, University of Passau [http://www.uni-passau.de/]
E-Mail: mailto:zen...@phil.uni-passau.de
WWW: http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/linguistik/staff/zentner/
mclane
Amir Ban <ami...@m-sys.com> wrote:
>The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
>- Rebel
will not participate. Ed concentrates on Rebel9.
>- M-Chess
will participate hopefully, and subscribe later, if this is possible.
>- Nimzo
has changed the name. It is called HYDRA now, this is the sister-ship
of the ORION. :-)
>- Genius
I thought he has translated it into a 32Bit engine.
>- WChess
Good question ! Where are you Dave ?? No new Wchess ???
>- Kallisto
Strange indeed.
Where is Kallisto.
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: Amir Ban <ami...@m-sys.com> wrote:
: >The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
: >- Rebel
: will not participate. Ed concentrates on Rebel9.
: >- M-Chess
: will participate hopefully, and subscribe later, if this is possible.
The info I received said this is impossible. They added two slots to the
field and are going to shoehorn this into what is not a large room. Sad
of course. However, the deadline was well-advertised. I'd think that
anyone planning on going could apply on time...
: >- Nimzo
: has changed the name. It is called HYDRA now, this is the sister-ship
: of the ORION. :-)
: >- Genius
: I thought he has translated it into a 32Bit engine.
: >- WChess
: Good question ! Where are you Dave ?? No new Wchess ???
He's around. Now using a K6/233 on ICC. Strong as all hell too...
: >- Kallisto
brucemo
Amir Ban wrote:
>
> The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
>
> - Rebel
> - Nimzo
> - Genius
> - WChess
> - Kallisto
>
> attend ?
Nimzo has become Hydra.
Also missing is Chessmaster 5000, aka The King.
bruce
ChessBase GmbH
Amir Ban wrote:
>
> The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
>
> - Rebel
> - M-Chess
> - Nimzo
> - Genius
> - WChess
> - Kallisto
>
> Can we please have an explanation from each why they do not choose to
> attend ?
>
> Amir
Chrilly Donninger is participating with his new "Hydra".
--
Matthias
mailto:wuelle...@compuserve.com
http://www.chessbase.com
Please DO NOT mail to 'wuelle...@t-online.de' (dead letter box)
Kai Luebke
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
What a disappointment!! Why isn't it possible even once in a decade to have
MChess, Rebel and Genius in the same WMCCC?
:
: >- Rebel
:
: will not participate. Ed concentrates on Rebel9.
Huh? Rebel 9 is supposed to come out before WMCCC, I thought.
Besides, couldn't he send his latest beta or gamma or whatever?
: >- M-Chess
:
: will participate hopefully, and subscribe later, if this is possible.
Huh? I remember Marty posted he'd be there, so why did he not subscribe in
time?
Sorry if I'm wrong, but to me it sounds like they chicken out... :-(
---
Shep
Michael Borgstädt
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:23:29 +0200, Amir Ban <ami...@m-sys.com> wrote:
>The WMCCC participant list is missing these professionals:
>
>- Rebel
>- M-Chess
>- Nimzo
>- Genius
>- WChess
>- Kallisto
>
>Can we please have an explanation from each why they do not choose to
>attend ?
>
>Amir
The latest participant list, published by the ICCA:
Name Country Category Operators
Hydra Austria EmergePro Bernhard Biberle
Gandalf Denmark EmergePro Dan Wolff and possibly Steen Suurballe
AnMon France Amateur Christian Barreteau
CAPTURE France Amateur Sylvain Renard
Dragon(Fr) France Amateur Bruno Lucas
Chess Guru France Amateur Joel Rivat
The Crazy Bishop France Amateur Remi Coulom
Virtual Chess 2 France Professional Marc-Francois Baudot
Chess Wizard France Amateur Frederic Louguet
Comet Germany Amateur Dirk Keller
DarkThought Germany Amateur Markus Gille & Ernst Heinz
GOLIATH X Germany EmergePro Michael Borgstaedt
Heureka Germany Amateur W. Traudes
Isichess Germany Amateur Gerd Isenberg
NIGHTMARE Germany Amateur Reinhold Gellner
Patzer Germany Amateur Roland Pfister
Shredder 2.0 Germany EmergePro Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
SOS German Amateur Rudolf Huber
XXXX II Germany Amateur Martin Zentner
Chess Tiger Guadeloupe Amateur Christophe Theron
Junior Israel Amateur Amir Ban & Shay Bushinsky
Arthur N'lands Amateur Walter Ravenek
Diep N'lands Amateur Vincent Diepeveen
Fritz N'lands Professional Mathias Feist & Frans Morsch
Eugen 7.2 Spain Amateur Eugenio Castillo
Toledo 2000 Spain Amateur Gerardo Castao
Ananse 3.0 Switz. Amateur Walter Bannerman
Chess System Tal UK Professional Thorsten Czub
Francesca UK Amateur Tom King
Hiarcs UK Professional Mark Uniacke
Woodpusher UK Amateur John Hamlen
Crafty USA Amateur Jason Deinse or Tom Crain
Ferret USA Amateur Bruce Moreland
Stobor USA Amateur Robert Reuser
Where are Genius, Mchess and especially Rebel ?
The programs didn´t participate last year (Jakarta), but with a good explanation.
But which reason regarding Paris ?
Political boycott, no time, no operator at Paris, too high entry fee, fear, or what ?
WMCCC Paris will not be a "real" championship again, if some of the well-known
programs are missing.
Any good explanation ?
M. Borgstaedt
Carl Tillotson
In article <342c19d8...@news.cww.de>, Michael Borgstädt wrote:
> Where are Genius, Mchess and especially Rebel ?
> The programs didn´t participate last year (Jakarta), but with a good explanation.
> But which reason regarding Paris ?
They are afraid of each other. Whilst they avoid running into each other at the
World Championships they can still present the "mystique" that they are a super
computer and all that. Similar to why Kasparov and Karpov avoid each other like the
plague, and why Short never seems to play in the UK.
Of course the excuse will be "no-time" or "expensive" - doesn't stop the Amateurs
though :-)
Carl Tillotson
=============
Lancashire Chess Association Homepage
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lca/index.htm
For the latest news, reviews and events happening on the
Lancashire Chess scene, visit the Lancashire Chess Association
homepage.
mclane
borgs...@mail.cww.de (Michael Borgstädt) wrote:
>Where are Genius, Mchess and especially Rebel ?
>The programs didn´t participate last year (Jakarta), but with a good explanation.
>But which reason regarding Paris ?
Mchess forgot to subscribe the event for private reasons and came 2
days to late.
As far as I know ICCA has put them on the waiting list...
Mchess wants to participate. They said something like:
in tournaments before the deadline was not used very strict (and gave
munich and paderborn as example).
If no program of the above list refutes, mchess is not able to
participate !!
Any voluntaries ??
>Political boycott, no time, no operator at Paris, too high entry fee, fear, or what ?
>WMCCC Paris will not be a "real" championship again, if some of the well-known
>programs are missing.
>Any good explanation ?
In the moment ICCA and Mchess-team seem to do any kind of
consideration how to help this problem.
I hope they will find a way, cause a championship with on top less is
not that interesting, as you said yourself.
Rebel is not participating, ed has his reasons I guess. I don't know
about the reasons.
Maybe he wanted to finish Rebel9 instead of participating.
Genius ?? I always thought Richard works on Genius6 and transforming
his engine from 16 assembler into 32Bit assembler. Maybe he is not
finished or the new approach is not strong enough or whatever...
>M. Borgstaedt
It was said (rumor) that Heureka and Goliath could be TWINS and by
throwing ONE of them out Mchess would find a place to participate :-)
What can you tell us about this Mr.Borgstaedt ??!! :-)
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>They are afraid of each other. Whilst they avoid running into each other at the
>World Championships they can still present the "mystique" that they are a super
>computer and all that. Similar to why Kasparov and Karpov avoid each other like the
>plague, and why Short never seems to play in the UK.
>Of course the excuse will be "no-time" or "expensive" - doesn't stop the Amateurs
>though :-)
Pah ! Hear said !
How do you know ?
Mchess is willing to participate, Rebel is strong (see ssdf-list). So
why should they be afraid ??
The only program that could have an advantage from NOT participating
could be Genius that has not made much progress over the last
versions.
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> Mchess forgot to subscribe the event for private reasons and came 2
> days to late.
Two days after the application deadline or two days after the entries
were selected?
bruce
Carl Tillotson
In article <60jc95$31v$2...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
> Mchess is willing to participate, Rebel is strong (see ssdf-list). So
> why should they be afraid ??
So we shall see them there shall we ?
Kai Luebke
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: borgs...@mail.cww.de (Michael Borgstädt) wrote:
:
: >Where are Genius, Mchess and especially Rebel ?
: Rebel is not participating, ed has his reasons I guess. I don't know
: about the reasons.
: Maybe he wanted to finish Rebel9 instead of participating.
Don't think so. The latest news on the Rebel homepage is that it will be in
the shops by mid-October, so Rebel 9 _is_ ready to play at WMCCC.
Why Ed doesn't go must have other reasons.
Please, Ed, tell us!
---
Shep
da...@taic.net
Kai Luebke <klu...@MI.Uni-Koeln.DE> wrote:
: Don't think so. The latest news on the Rebel homepage is that it will be in
: the shops by mid-October, so Rebel 9 _is_ ready to play at WMCCC.
: Why Ed doesn't go must have other reasons.
: Please, Ed, tell us!
Probably, he is afraid of a bad result.
Rolf Tueschen
da...@taic.net wrote:
>Kai Luebke <klu...@MI.Uni-Koeln.DE> wrote:
Don't know, because he didn't bother to get some slaps from the High
Court in Zwolle for claiming nazi-victim status world wide...
He the defender of Czub's nazi-like stuff.
mclane
da...@taic.net wrote:
> Probably, he is afraid of a bad result.
Why do you and others too, always believe somebody is afraid ??
Is this what drives youself in your life mainly ??
I don't think that chessprogrammers are afraid people !
If somebody is not participating somewhere, the first thing somebody
considers is: maybe he is afraid to do this !
I don't think that Ed or Marty are afraid of anything.
But I see here in this newsgroup many people projecting this from
their own live-experience. I guess many of you seem to have problems
with fears.
da...@taic.net
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
: da...@taic.net wrote:
Since Ed will be releasing shortly his new Rebel 9, and since he
comes out with a new version about once a year, if that new version ends
up scoring in the middle of the field at a tournament just before the
release date, then I think Ed has a lot to fear.
Whereas if he doesn't compete, he can always continue to state
soething like "World Champion 1996" or "1995" or whatever, and hope that
people don't pay close attention because of all the prior favorable
publicity that he has received.
To repeat: It's not like he has a new product every month or two.
If he blows the advertising for the once a year product, he has *real*
problems.
Carl Tillotson
In article <342D68...@seanet.com>, Brucemo wrote:
> Two days after the application deadline or two days after the entries
> were selected?
Very Nice !
You're not suggesting MCHESS was waiting to see if REBEL was participating
first, before the sudden urge to enter :-)
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>In article <60jc95$31v$2...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
>> Mchess is willing to participate, Rebel is strong (see ssdf-list). So
>> why should they be afraid ??
>So we shall see them there shall we ?
Maybe you don't understand me.
Mchess WANTS to participate but is not allowed to do it, because ICCA
says: you have subscribed after the deadline...
Rebel: Ed Schroeder has told that he don't want to participate !
Both programs are strong. The fact that they will maybe both not
participate in Paris does not imply they are afraid.
It is not a holy law to participate on an ICCA championship.
It is not written in the bible. Nobody has to follow. Aegon tournament
is e.g. a different event, and from my point of view it is better than
any ICCA championship could ever be.
Rolf Tueschen
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>da...@taic.net wrote:
>> Probably, he is afraid of a bad result.
>Why do you and others too, always believe somebody is afraid ??
>Is this what drives youself in your life mainly ??
>I don't think that chessprogrammers are afraid people !
>If somebody is not participating somewhere, the first thing somebody
>considers is: maybe he is afraid to do this !
ROTFL. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
But this is exactly what sissy Ed wrote on the day when he got his slaps
in Zwolle (you know where the nazi-like postings of Czub were on-topic):
"Tueschen is chicken? He didn't show..."
ROTFL. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
>I don't think that Ed or Marty are afraid of anything.
I leave Marty out here of course, but Ed definetely doesn't bother to
make a clown of himself. He clearly stated once that he wouldnt play in
a championship where he could be beaten by a no-name amateur...
If this isn't chicken...
>But I see here in this newsgroup many people projecting this from
>their own live-experience. I guess many of you seem to have problems
>with fears.
Yeah, it needs a Czub to teach us about psychiatry and many other high
levelled fields...
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> Mchess WANTS to participate but is not allowed to do it, because ICCA
> says: you have subscribed after the deadline...
How far after the deadline?
After the application deadline, or after the participants were announced?
bruce
Robert Hyatt
brucemo (bru...@seanet.com) wrote:
: mclane wrote:
: bruce
I can think of a couple of times "games" have been played with this entry
deadline. IE, one particularly notable tournament (which will remain
unnamed to protect the guilty) had a well-known (and non-commercial, by
the way) program not entering, until they discovered that another, favored-
to-win program was *not* coming, and then the first program suddenly had
second thoughts and entered. I think this is the issue that several have
pointed toward here...
IE did Mchess enter after the deadline, but before the list of participants
were selected? If so, he really should have been accepted, so I suspect this
didn't happen. Or did Mchess enter after the list of participants had been
made public. If so, regardless of his reason for waiting so long, it would
obviously be unfair to admit him and have to rescind acceptance of a program
already notified of being accepted.
I have no idea why Marty was late. I don't particularly think he waited to
see whether Rebel or Genius would go. I'd think he knows that there are
plenty of bad news programs that are going, so it simply becomes a matter
of "go and take a chance or not go." I doubt who is going played much of
a role in the decision. I suspect the desire to "not take a chance" affects
every commercial programmer's decision, because there's much to lose, and a
high probability of losing it. Some elect to go anyway, and should be
applauded. Some elect to not go. I consider that to be their perogative.
It is *still* going to be one heck of a chess tournament. Even if *no*
commercial program was signed up... there are plenty of strong amateur
programs going. I don't think the quality of chess would be affected at
all, whether program "X" goes or does not. The average skill level will
be strong enough to make it interesting anyway...
I look forward to it. Even if C gets killed. :)
mclane
da...@taic.net wrote:
> To repeat: It's not like he has a new product every month or two.
>If he blows the advertising for the once a year product, he has *real*
>problems.
Ed's program was the leader of the ssdf-list for a long time.
New programs (Hiarcs6) and new hardware (200 Mhz machines) changed
this a little. Maybe Rebel9 will take again the leadership of the
list...
There is no reason for Ed to be afraid ... he has a good product.
Rolf Tueschen
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>There is no reason for Ed to be afraid ... he has a good product.
This is quite true, it seems to me for instance.
The Pope of Good Products and Rebel
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>But this is exactly what sissy Ed wrote on the day when he got his slaps
>in Zwolle (you know where the nazi-like postings of Czub were on-topic):
>"Tueschen is chicken? He didn't show..."
Wenn du die Gerichtsvorladung mit Empfaenger unbekannt zurueckschickst
und/oder nicht erscheinst heisst das noch lange nicht, dass du ein
toller Hecht bist, Rolf.
Es zeigt eigentlich nur, dass du einmal die ANONYMITAET suchst, die du
hier im Internet bei anderen gerne kritisierst (mclane etc.).
Warum hast du denn nicht gesagt: ich bin Tueschen ! Hier ! Ich, der
grosse Pope !
Sonst hast du doch keine Schwierigkeiten deine Omnipotenz zeigefreudig
an den Mann zu bringen !
Da hast du jedenfalls so getan als gaebe es dich nicht. Uebrigens eine
Sache die wir alle sehr zu schaetzen gewusst haetten.
Wenn sie wahr gewesen waere.
Aber wie heisst es so schoen: Sein Leben war nicht Sein, sein Wandel
war nur Schein.
>I leave Marty out here of course, but Ed definetely doesn't bother to
>make a clown of himself. He clearly stated once that he wouldnt play in
>a championship where he could be beaten by a no-name amateur...
>If this isn't chicken...
Das einzige gackernde Huhn das ich in dieser NEWSGROUP sehen kann bist
du Plaudertasche. Du solltest dich mal bei Lilo-Wanders einladen
lassen. Die stehen auf solche wie dich !
>>But I see here in this newsgroup many people projecting this from
>>their own live-experience. I guess many of you seem to have problems
>>with fears.
>Yeah, it needs a Czub to teach us about psychiatry and many other high
>levelled fields...
Ich weiss gar nicht was du hast, wir sind uns schliesslich alle einig
dass du einen an der Klatsche hast. In diesem Punkt haben uns deine
Erguesse und Telefonate naemlich genuegend Material zur Verfuegung
gestellt um dieses pruefen zu koennen.
Sei doch stolz ueberhaupt im Mittelpunkt zu stehen, und sei es auch
nur als das groesste Arschloch dieser newsgroups. Immerhin ein Titel !
Fuer einen Verrueckten doch nicht schlecht , oder ?
Vielleicht wirst du ja sogar einmal Bundeskanzler oder Buergermeister
von Muenster !
Anderseits koennte es jedoch auch passieren, dass dir mal einer die
Stuetze entzieht, vielleicht irgendsoein Asylant der es besser
gebrauchen koennte. Du brauchst doch keine Sozialhilfe ! Wie ich das
sehe schmeisst du die ganze Sozialhilfe in Telefonkosten aus dem
Fenster, nur um andere friedvolle Leute anzupissen.
Also - ich denke das Sozialamt wird sich dafuer interessieren, was du
so mit ihrem Geld machst!
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>> Mchess WANTS to participate but is not allowed to do it, because ICCA
>> says: you have subscribed after the deadline...
>How far after the deadline?
>After the application deadline, or after the participants were announced?
>bruce
Peter knows. If he answers here ?! ...
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>I have no idea why Marty was late. I don't particularly think he waited to
I am talking with Peter for a long time. We are both operators for 2
chess programs.
He operates Mchess.
We never had the idea that he IS NOT PARTICIPATING.
We planned driving , hotel and how I can help him (he has a broken
leg/foot).
I don't think that they made any game with late-entry.
Otherwise the reactions of my friend planning this championship
together with me would have been acting.
Of course I do not believe this.
One thing is for sure: because of Peters broken leg the team was
unsure what to do. It was NOT clear early enough if Peter can walk
himself and operate in Paris.
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> Peter knows. If he answers here ?! ...
In my opinion, you've put Peter, and by extension Marty
Hirsch, in a position where *someone* has to answer
somewhere.
You've accused the ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
This either needs to be shown to be true or shown to be
false. Someone please do one or the other, *soon*.
bruce
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> I am talking with Peter for a long time. We are both operators for 2
> chess programs.
> He operates Mchess.
> We never had the idea that he IS NOT PARTICIPATING.
> We planned driving , hotel and how I can help him (he has a broken
> leg/foot).[more snipped]
You need to stop this unless you provide information about when MChess
applied. If they applied after the application deadline, but before
the participants were announced, you may have a point. If they
applied after the participants were announced, I think the ICCA did
the right thing.
I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this, but you haven't.
So please, either put up or shut up.
bruce
Pitters
Im Artikel <60ont6$n...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu
(Robert Hyatt) schreibt:
>: > Mchess WANTS to participate but is not allowed to do it, because ICCA
>: > says: you have subscribed after the deadline...
>
>: How far after the deadline?
>
>: After the application deadline, or after the participants were announced?
>
>: bruce
>
>I can think of a couple of times "games" have been played with this entry
>deadline. IE, one particularly notable tournament (which will remain
>unnamed to protect the guilty) had a well-known (and non-commercial, by
>the way) program not entering, until they discovered that another, favored-
>to-win program was *not* coming, and then the first program suddenly had
>second thoughts and entered. I think this is the issue that several have
>pointed toward here...
>
>IE did Mchess enter after the deadline, but before the list of participants
>were selected? If so, he really should have been accepted, so I suspect this
>didn't happen. Or did Mchess enter after the list of participants had been
>made public. If so, regardless of his reason for waiting so long, it would
>obviously be unfair to admit him and have to rescind acceptance of a program
>already notified of being accepted.
>
>I have no idea why Marty was late. I don't particularly think he waited to
>see whether Rebel or Genius would go. I'd think he knows that there are
>plenty of bad news programs that are going, so it simply becomes a matter
>of "go and take a chance or not go." I doubt who is going played much of
>a role in the decision. I suspect the desire to "not take a chance" affects
>every commercial programmer's decision, because there's much to lose, and a
>high probability of losing it. Some elect to go anyway, and should be
>applauded. Some elect to not go. I consider that to be their perogative.
>
>It is *still* going to be one heck of a chess tournament. Even if *no*
>commercial program was signed up... there are plenty of strong amateur
>programs going. I don't think the quality of chess would be affected at
>all, whether program "X" goes or does not. The average skill level will
>be strong enough to make it interesting anyway...
>
>I look forward to it. Even if C gets killed. :)
Dear friends,
for MChess the situation was a little bit difficult in this year. I had an
accident in the summer, my leg was fractured and I `m sitting in a
wheel-chair..:-(. Marty and I didn`t have any certainty, if there was any
possibility for me, operating MChess in Paris. A few days ago my physician
allowed me the travel, but we didn`t get now any chance, to start in Paris
( ICCA says : to late ). Probably they didn`t have enough place in the
tournament hall ......we don`t know.
Please pay attention to the fact, that the MChess - Team is as usual well
prepared, to start at such a tournament ! If the ICCA will give us the
chance to participate, then we `ll be naturally present there.
Have a good time !
-Peter
Rolf Tueschen
pit...@aol.com (Pitters) wrote:
This is true.
I see a problem with the MChess case. We should applaude if he wanted to
go/ was prepared to go.
What I couldn't accept is the rather sloppy style of Marty's operator.
He thinks that a broken leg [I have friends who lie in an iron lungue]
should justify some surplus recompensations?
If the operator broke his leg in summer, he had weeks if not months to
announce this handicap and to talk with the officials and to take into
consideration a new operator, no?
But now I agree with you it seems as if they had waited till the
deadline to be sure that no further concurrent could show up, if not
more seriously wounded :), and they now try to claim bonus points...
Basically, it's for me another clear proof of the not so developped
communication abilities of this operator, to whom I once gave my Gold
Medal of the week. And that was before he broke his leg.
It's also a medical question if the freen light to travel should be
understood this way. As operator you have an hour long job caring for
your baby. What if some late night failures occured like the draw of Ed
against Sofia, abd then we have to provide the MChess itself with a sort
of handicap bonus.....
You know, I know a lot of very experienced chess players who can't
attend such meetings, although they wanted to operate a machine so
dearly, due to a physical handicap. No, for a *longtime experienced*
operator the opening rituals of such big events should be well known
before and he has full responsibility if he now in the end busted his
mentor Marty too.
The ICCA did nothing wrong. They published well in advance the dates.
And there's no bad done to MChess because others -- who attended in time
-- had to be rejected. So, although I feel sorry for Marty especially,
for him it's not the first deception in 97, I can't accept any special
advantages due to a broken leg. This is sports. And it happens all the
time. And the operator never claimed a hurt tongue, or broken internet
account.....
Finally, the Czub add, that "they never had the idea that one of them
wouldn't participate, and they therefore had already mde their plans to
travel" is absolute nonsense. Both may be good friends. But what is more
important, the are experienced operators. And they had time enough to
contact the officials. I would detect a somewhat masochistic tendency.
First Ed Schroder, insulting people, acting for character assassination,
then running to court and claiming nazi-victim status for himself and
his company. Second the operator of MChess. Broke his leg in summer.
Never spoke about whether here in the group nor to the authorities.
But now after the deadline whining with the argument, that MChess is
hopefully best prepared to take part.
Honestly. I never expected other things from a top classed program out
of the former World-Champ region.
But from its operator I had expected more friendly answers on some
simple technical questions... There he didn't give a damn shit about a
free RGCC. He was only writing for the mags where he could be disturbed
by questions. If it was out of arrogance that he didn't answer then he
now had to bear a justified punishment. It's always better to talk than
to regrade into silence... (Peace talkings, Ed?)
But now he could also write long articles for the mags. Why should RGCC
help him out... (I know, but I'm from the Old Testament.)
Sorry. I didn't write, and insinuated not a single idea against M.
Hirsch personally. To evitate another flame war.
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>> Peter knows. If he answers here ?! ...
>In my opinion, you've put Peter, and by extension Marty
>Hirsch, in a position where *someone* has to answer
>somewhere.
Was it me or was it YOU who has the feeling or made it so important to
ANSWER to your repeatedly questions ??
If somebody has put Peter/Marty in a situation to answer, it was you
alone. Don't you remember you questioning for deadlines and data ?
>You've accused the ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
>This either needs to be shown to be true or shown to be
>false. Someone please do one or the other, *soon*.
>bruce
I have not accused ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
This exists in your mind. Because you see in almost anything somebody
says an attack. If you would live in europe/germany I guess you would
feel almost any day attacked by somebody. In a discussion you need to
express your point of view. If this is not possible, and is always
seen as an attack, democracy is senseless.
My point in the discussion is, that if I would be them, I would have
done anything to let Mchess participate.
For you the whole thing is a question of signing before deadline.
For me this is a very narrow behaviour.
Deadlines and rules and laws are nice, they help to get some order.
They make organizing easier.
But deadlines/rules/laws are not more important than people/members
and exceptions.
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this, but you haven't.
>So please, either put up or shut up.
It not my job to "clarify" anything for you.
Also you will not see me stop talking only because you wishes it.
My point is clear:
Mchess wanted to participate and Peter wanted to operate.
3 things have come together to stop mchess from participating:
1. peter had problems with his leg
2. marty was unable to pay 1000 $ (thanks to Mr.Stamer ! Grrrrr.
Hate!)
3. they took the deadline not to serious...
To construct any theory that they are afraid to participate or that
they wanted to do some tactics (looking if their concurrents sign) is
not based on reality from my point of view.
I would not have planned driving by car to paris, catch Peter in Trier
and booking the same hotel in this case.
>bruce
The fact that you repeatedly ask the same question and I don't asnwer
shows no evidence at all. It only shows that I don't answer because
Peter knows the date. I am not interested in the date, cause I even
don't know when the deadline was.
I don't know why Peter is not answering you. I guess he is not anymore
posting/reading here because of Rolf Tueschen.
Thanks Bruce !
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
> But what is more
>important, the are experienced operators. And they had time enough to
>contact the officials. I would detect a somewhat masochistic tendency.
Rolf, I can only hope you will never operate a computer-program. You
would meet many people who know you from rgcc and this could be a
problem for you, so i would propose you operate only with an anonymous
label on your shirt, maybe Mad-Max or Mr.Bean 2 or something like
this.
of course not the operator but the programmer has to subscribe to the
event.
The first thing an operator has to be is: quiet !
I guess for this reason you could never be an operator.
BTW: experience is something that comes with the time, if you make
your job good. I doubt if you know what experience is.
brucemo
mclane wrote:
>
> brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
> >So please, either put up or shut up.
>
> It not my job to "clarify" anything for you.
> Also you will not see me stop talking only because you wishes it.
I want you to stop repeating half of the story. The other half of the
story, which is the part you should also include, I believe clears
things up.
The application deadline was end of August. Accepted entries were
supposed to have been chosen and published 10-September. In fact, they
were published on 15-September.
MChess applied on 17-September.
So by the time MChess applied, everyone had been informed of the status
of their entry already for two days.
So what would you have the ICCA do as of that point? You would have
them revoke one of the accepted entries? This is obviously an awful
solution. "Hey, you guys need to cancel your travel plans, you are out,
because we found someone we would like more to accept."
No, maybe not. Ok, then how about adding a spot to the tournament.
Should be easy to make it a 33-program tournament rather than a
32-program tournament, or whatever. But 32 wasn't chosen arbitrarily,
it was the space they had. And if they *can* cram more people into the
space, then why didn't they cram one of the applicants who was already
on the wait list at the time MChess applied?
You want to hate the ICCA, fine, but don't report part of the story, the
part that makes the ICCA look bad. If you are going to report the
story, report the whole thing. Report not only that MChess applied
late, Peter has a broken foot, Marty is broke, the big bad ICCA put them
on the waiting list, etc., also report that they applied *way* late,
after the accepted entries were announced.
This little bit of information *matters*.
I look forward to seeing Peter and MChess in Paris. I am sure they will
get a spot on the tournament, since they are number one on the waiting
list, supposedly.
> To construct any theory that they are afraid to participate or that
> they wanted to do some tactics (looking if their concurrents sign) is
> not based on reality from my point of view.
You have never heard *me* say anything like this, at all. There is no
evidence for this point of view, either, so I wouldn't say something
like this.
> The fact that you repeatedly ask the same question and I don't asnwer
> shows no evidence at all. It only shows that I don't answer because
> Peter knows the date. I am not interested in the date, cause I even
> don't know when the deadline was.
I am way interested in the date, because it matters.
> I don't know why Peter is not answering you. I guess he is not anymore
> posting/reading here because of Rolf Tueschen.
I don't know what happened between you guys that information came from
the ICCA to Peter, then all or part of it went to you, then you posted
some of the information here and we hear nothing from Peter.
But this makes everyone look bad. And nobody should have to look bad
here, because everything was handled fairly, in my opinion.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
: >mclane wrote:
: >> Peter knows. If he answers here ?! ...
: >bruce
Possibly not. But *if* Mchess applied *after* the field had been
chosen, and everyone notified, I don't see how it could be handled.
They have apparently been put on the top of the waiting list. If
there is a groundswell to let them in, I'll gladly withdraw Crafty
to give them a chance. I'm not exactly hyper about this problem,
either pro or con.
Of course, it *could* have been avoided, too. So the sword has two
edges, and cuts both ways... Entered on time and there'd be no problem
at all...
Robert Hyatt
: >mclane wrote:
: >I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this, but you haven't.
: >So please, either put up or shut up.
: It not my job to "clarify" anything for you.
: Also you will not see me stop talking only because you wishes it.
: My point is clear:
: Mchess wanted to participate and Peter wanted to operate.
: 3 things have come together to stop mchess from participating:
: 1. peter had problems with his leg
: 2. marty was unable to pay 1000 $ (thanks to Mr.Stamer ! Grrrrr.
: Hate!)
: 3. they took the deadline not to serious...
: To construct any theory that they are afraid to participate or that
: they wanted to do some tactics (looking if their concurrents sign) is
: not based on reality from my point of view.
: I would not have planned driving by car to paris, catch Peter in Trier
: and booking the same hotel in this case.
: >bruce
: The fact that you repeatedly ask the same question and I don't asnwer
: shows no evidence at all. It only shows that I don't answer because
: Peter knows the date. I am not interested in the date, cause I even
: don't know when the deadline was.
That's an easy question. All entries were due in by August 31, 1997.
Notification was scheduled to be sent out 9/10/97 as to who was
accepted, and who was on "stand-by"...
So the "hard" date was 9/10, as an entry received after that would be
received after the field had been notified as to who had been accepted.
Since there is limited playing space, and a limit on the number of loaner
computers, this was treated as a "hard limit". If Mchess applied after
9/10 it was simply too late, it wasn't an ICCA plot, and it wasn't the
ICCA being insensitive to its "membership". Even if the entry was
received before 9/10, but after 8/31, it is hard to call this being
insensitive to the paying membership. It's more like carelessness on
the part of the Mchess team.
I'm reminded of a sign hung in my wife's office:
"A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an
emergency on my part."
That seems to apply here as well, just replace "your" by "mchess"
and replace "my" by "ICCA"...
: I don't know why Peter is not answering you. I guess he is not anymore
: posting/reading here because of Rolf Tueschen.
: Thanks Bruce !
Carl Tillotson
In article <60ri8l$hf0$2...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
> If somebody has put Peter/Marty in a situation to answer, it was you
> alone. Don't you remember you questioning for deadlines and data ?
But it was you mclane, who insisted on *KNOWING* that they applied but missed
the deadline - and in doing so started off the whole story with the slant
that MCHESS would have been there if it wasn't for .....
At the end of the day MCHESS won't be there, but like any event of this
nature the rest of the world is entitled to ask questions. You clearly stated
that MCHESS and REBEL were not running scared of the opposition, I say they
are. It is a well known marketing ploy, it's only worth saying "I am World
Champion" when you are world champion, but it is useful to maintain the
myth as long as possible. You obviously don't put much emphasis into this
aspect of "marketing" since you think that MCHESS and REBEL would be
there if they could, I put it that they would have been there if they
really had wanted to !
Just like Bobby Fischer can still claim that he is "technically" still an
undefeated World Champion, a chess program can still lay such a claim until
it has been resoundedly defeated at the WMCCC :-)
Martin Borriss
In article <3431CE...@seanet.com>,
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> writes:
>
>The application deadline was end of August. Accepted entries were
>supposed to have been chosen and published 10-September. In fact, they
>were published on 15-September.
>
>MChess applied on 17-September.
>
>So by the time MChess applied, everyone had been informed of the status
>of their entry already for two days.
Almost; everyone could make a guess on its status based on the programs
which were accepted. No pending / rejected or even a waiting list was
announced until today. Let alone criteria for the selection process. At
least this is what I know.
Martin
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>: >mclane wrote:
>: >I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this, but you haven't.
>: >So please, either put up or shut up.
>: It not my job to "clarify" anything for you.
>: Also you will not see me stop talking only because you wishes it.
>: My point is clear:
>: Mchess wanted to participate and Peter wanted to operate.
>: 3 things have come together to stop mchess from participating:
>: 1. peter had problems with his leg
>: 2. marty was unable to pay 1000 $
Bob, that's one of the points, where a borderline to possible negative
consequences up to character assassination is reached. Marty once wrote
about his conflict with Stamer and change into another main job without
however leaving cc, and now this Czub talkes in a worl wide newsgroup
about Marty's difficulties to pay the 1000$ entrence fee. True or not,
this is unbelievable. And I want to lead your attention to stuff like
this because it seems as if you didn't care about such happenings
whereas you favor a safe RGCP. But you quote stuff like this yourself.
People like Schroder and Whittington (who again engaged this amoking
madman) should be aware that they will be responsible and therefore
taken to task if this Czub accomplishes new character assassinations.
Who told Czub of the actual financial situation of Marty?
Chrisw should comment on this as quickly as possible.
Sure we have a free usenet. But being employed by ChrisW, Czub is not
free to talk about all he perhaps only knew due to his engagement...
It looks like a new scandal at the moment. Chris?
>: (thanks to Mr.Stamer ! Grrrrr.
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
>: brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>: >mclane wrote:
>: >> Peter knows. If he answers here ?! ...
>: >In my opinion, you've put Peter, and by extension Marty
>: >Hirsch, in a position where *someone* has to answer
>: >somewhere.
>: Was it me or was it YOU who has the feeling or made it so important to
>: ANSWER to your repeatedly questions ??
>: If somebody has put Peter/Marty in a situation to answer, it was you
>: alone. Don't you remember you questioning for deadlines and data ?
>: >You've accused the ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
>: >This either needs to be shown to be true or shown to be
>: >false. Someone please do one or the other, *soon*.
>: >bruce
>: I have not accused ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
>: This exists in your mind. Because you see in almost anything somebody
>: says an attack. If you would live in europe/germany I guess you would
>: feel almost any day attacked by somebody. In a discussion you need to
>: express your point of view. If this is not possible, and is always
>: seen as an attack, democracy is senseless.
>: My point in the discussion is, that if I would be them, I would have
>: done anything to let Mchess participate.
>: For you the whole thing is a question of signing before deadline.
>: For me this is a very narrow behaviour.
>: Deadlines and rules and laws are nice, they help to get some order.
>: They make organizing easier.
>: But deadlines/rules/laws are not more important than people/members
>: and exceptions.
>Possibly not. But *if* Mchess applied *after* the field had been
>chosen, and everyone notified, I don't see how it could be handled.
>They have apparently been put on the top of the waiting list. If
>there is a groundswell to let them in, I'll gladly withdraw Crafty
>to give them a chance.
I hope that it will *not* come to this. As member of the big crafty fan
community I want to know what crafty can do this year against the
concurrents...
Bob, you imputed so much work into crafty that it's only fair that you
got a chance to see how it's fighting. The longtime USA-internet games
are no argument at all, because then Ferret could also give his place...
I think we've only too few three programs from the USA. We can't cut it
further.
If it's really the fee (see my other post) we should be able to quickly
inable MChess an entrance if they opened a 33th place. I will take part
in the sponsorship!
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: Hyatt wrote:
: >Possibly not. But *if* Mchess applied *after* the field had been
: >chosen, and everyone notified, I don't see how it could be handled.
: >They have apparently been put on the top of the waiting list. If
: >there is a groundswell to let them in, I'll gladly withdraw Crafty
: >to give them a chance.
: I hope that it will *not* come to this. As member of the big crafty fan
: community I want to know what crafty can do this year against the
: concurrents...
: Bob, you imputed so much work into crafty that it's only fair that you
: got a chance to see how it's fighting. The longtime USA-internet games
: are no argument at all, because then Ferret could also give his place...
: I think we've only too few three programs from the USA. We can't cut it
: further.
: If it's really the fee (see my other post) we should be able to quickly
: inable MChess an entrance if they opened a 33th place. I will take part
: in the sponsorship!
Here's what I know at present:
1. the official entry deadline was advertised as 9/30/97.
2. the ICCA "announcement" said that entrants would be notified on 9/10 if
they were accepted.
3. On 9/10, the ICCA sent an announcement to all entrants saying they were
going to be late due to the number of entries and the number of available
slots.
4. on 9/15, the ICCA notified everyone of who had been accepted and sent a
list of participants to everyone accepted (and, presumably, to those that
had not been accepted.)
5. *after* 9/15, the Mchess entry was received. IE, *after* everyone had
already been notified who was coming.
I don't know the precise date for #5 above, although I do know it was after
9/15... which means the ICCA could do nothing for this situation at all, because
the field had already been fixed. Crafty's ready to play, with an operator that is
making travel arrangements. We are *both* working hard to get this thing tuned up
for Paris. However, *if* enough would prefer to see Mchess rather than Crafty go,
that won't ruin my weekend. But unless someone drops out for whatever reason, it
seems that Mchess won't be able to play. Who is at fault is debatable. But it is
*clearly* not the ICCA or tournament folks. They only did what they said they would
do. In fact, I started bugging them around the 10th to "let's go and see the list,
guys..." They responded with the notice that it would be a couple of more days.
But I have email from the 15th with the list of participants on it...
brucemo
Carl Tillotson wrote:
> At the end of the day MCHESS won't be there, but like any event of this
> nature the rest of the world is entitled to ask questions. You clearly stated
> that MCHESS and REBEL were not running scared of the opposition, I say they
> are. It is a well known marketing ploy, it's only worth saying "I am World
> Champion" when you are world champion, but it is useful to maintain the
> myth as long as possible. You obviously don't put much emphasis into this
> aspect of "marketing" since you think that MCHESS and REBEL would be
> there if they could, I put it that they would have been there if they
> really had wanted to !
I don't know what the motivations of the commercial programmers are, but if I
didn't go, I would be pretty upset about someone trying to guess why.
To do one of these takes over a week of your time, you have to pay for a week
of hotel, you have to travel to get there, you have to take a week off of your
job if you have one (and it's not a vacation, you are playing chess all day
long), you might have to buy a machine, etc. It is a high-stress event.
I always get sick, so this year I am going to pack cold and flu medication,
unless I manage to make myself sick before I even get on the plane.
bruce
brucemo
mclane wrote:
>
> I have not accused ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
> This exists in your mind. Because you see in almost anything somebody
> says an attack. If you would live in europe/germany I guess you would
> feel almost any day attacked by somebody. In a discussion you need to
> express your point of view. If this is not possible, and is always
> seen as an attack, democracy is senseless.
I want to apologize for my tone. You are right. In this newsgroup you
have been very restrained about this topic. I looked back through the
old posts and found that this is true.
> My point in the discussion is, that if I would be them, I would have
> done anything to let Mchess participate.
I expect that they considered it very carefully. Perhaps you have not
been on the ICCA mailing list for this. All along they were concerned
that they had way more entries than they had space, so they had to
reject entries for upon space reasons.
At the point MChess applied, they had already rejected entries, due to
lack of space. If they had rejected entries on the basis of strength,
sure, but the reason that these entries were rejected is that they
couldn't fit any more into the hall.
> For you the whole thing is a question of signing before deadline.
> For me this is a very narrow behaviour.
> Deadlines and rules and laws are nice, they help to get some order.
> They make organizing easier.
> But deadlines/rules/laws are not more important than people/members
> and exceptions.
Of course. If they had applied on the 14th, one day before the entries
were announced, and two weeks after the application deadline, *I* would
have accepted their entry, because they are so obviously strong, and so
obviously should be at the tournament.
But after the mail has gone out, it is too late. This is not a matter
of strict adherence to rules that don't matter, it is simply a matter
that the playing hall is full.
This is shame, but it is nothing to complain about, in my opinion.
I fully expect that MChess will be there, since someone will drop out.
Please not Crafty, Bob.
bruce
brucemo
Martin Borriss wrote:
> Almost; everyone could make a guess on its status based on the programs
> which were accepted. No pending / rejected or even a waiting list was
> announced until today. Let alone criteria for the selection process. At
> least this is what I know.
Augh.
I would like to see the waiting list if you have it, or perhaps you could
post it here if that is reasonable, since I didn't get it.
bruce
Jim Caccamise
Please don't give up Crafty's WMCCC entry for MChess. Of course, I
would like to see both Crafty and MChess participate. I wish all top
programs would participate. I hope an opening appears for MChess. But,
please don't give up Crafty's spot. Crafty doesn't appear on the SSDF
lists, so I look forward to this opportunity for comparison with other
programs. If MChess doesn't participate we at least have SSDF results
for MChess.
--
Jim Caccamise
( Remove X from e-mail address, anti-spam )
Chris Carson
I agree with Jim. I would like see both participate, but
not at the expense of Crafty. Yes, I am a Crafty fan and would
be sad to miss this opportunity to see Crafty perform.
I wish Mchess, Rebel, and Genius were there. Perhaps a spot for
Mchess will open, but please keep Crafty there. :)
Jim Caccamise wrote:
>
> Please don't give up Crafty's WMCCC entry for MChess.
--
Best Regards,
Chris Carson email: chris-...@ti.com
Carl Tillotson
In article <343277...@seanet.com>, Brucemo wrote:
> I don't know what the motivations of the commercial programmers are, but if I
> didn't go, I would be pretty upset about someone trying to guess why.
But you are an amateur, the "commerical" programmers don't have an excuse about
missing a deadline because they didn't think it was a serious one !
Personally, I am glad MCHESS are on the waiting list and that no precedent has
been set to allow the commerical's special treatment :-)
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>In article <60ri8l$hf0$2...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
>> If somebody has put Peter/Marty in a situation to answer, it was you
>> alone. Don't you remember you questioning for deadlines and data ?
>But it was you mclane, who insisted on *KNOWING* that they applied but missed
>the deadline - and in doing so started off the whole story with the slant
>that MCHESS would have been there if it wasn't for .....
What is wrong with a statement where somebody or me says they missed
the dead-line ??
>At the end of the day MCHESS won't be there, but like any event of this
>nature the rest of the world is entitled to ask questions. You clearly stated
>that MCHESS and REBEL were not running scared of the opposition, I say they
>are.
Right. You say they are scared. I say they are not scared.
> It is a well known marketing ploy, it's only worth saying "I am World
>Champion" when you are world champion, but it is useful to maintain the
>myth as long as possible.
Deep Blue :-)
>You obviously don't put much emphasis into this
>aspect of "marketing" since you think that MCHESS and REBEL would be
>there if they could, I put it that they would have been there if they
>really had wanted to !
Look - you think it is important to win an ICCA championship.
From my point of view icca championships are like russian-roulette.
Nobody knows what happens and who wins.
Many things influence the event. The decisions of the ICCA tournament
director or refferee are not able to calculate because they are not
using written rules/laws , they decide whatever they want depending on
the fact if they are in good mood, in bad mood or whatever.
>Just like Bobby Fischer can still claim that he is "technically" still an
>undefeated World Champion, a chess program can still lay such a claim until
>it has been resoundedly defeated at the WMCCC :-)
You believe in tournaments where the programs play maybe 11 games ,
ONE game against each opponent. Some with white, some with black.
I do better trust my own feelings and my autoplayer that can produce
more data the icca could ever do. I can discuss with my friends in
emails, exchange data with them (they have also autoplayer-pairs at
home), and after 2 months or more, I know better about the strength of
any program.
A championship is not exactly invented to measure playing strength. It
is more like the test-suites: it makes fun and you can be proud to get
the best ranking in the end. But thats all.
So ICCA championships are like solving the Covax-test-suite. Only
difference: you have to pay for it !
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On 1 Oct 1997 hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> However, *if* enough would prefer to see Mchess rather than Crafty go,
>that won't ruin my weekend.
NO !!!! Crafty must play.
Greetings, Herbert
---
The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>I don't know the precise date for #5 above, although I do know it was after
>9/15... which means the ICCA could do nothing for this situation at all, because
>the field had already been fixed. Crafty's ready to play, with an operator that is
>making travel arrangements. We are *both* working hard to get this thing tuned up
>for Paris. However, *if* enough would prefer to see Mchess rather than Crafty go,
>that won't ruin my weekend.
No - I won't accept this either !
I want to see crafty playing, and playing under best conditions and
best hardware and and and.
No excuses !
That was never my point.
> But unless someone drops out for whatever reason, it
>seems that Mchess won't be able to play. Who is at fault is debatable. But it is
>*clearly* not the ICCA or tournament folks.
It is not a question of FAULT !
These discussions about : it is who at fault do never help.
My point was: is ICCA interested in Mchess participating and is ICCA
FOR the programs or against them.
Example:
I am working in a supermarket.
A customer who has bought a pocket-calculator (Texas-INstrument) comes
an hour later again and says:
There was no pocket calculator in the box. The box you gave me was
EMPTY ! I am very upset ! I run all the way home, it was raining. And
now EMPTY !!!
How would you react ?
You have not looked into the box. It felt heavy when you gave it to
the customer.
Bruce would maybe ask: Do you have any evidence that the box was empty
?
Of course the customer has NO EVIDENCE that the box was empty !
What a normal salesman does (to satisfy his customers) is: he takes
another pocket-calculator and gives it to the customer and excuses
politely.
And the SHOP was not fincanced by membership payments like the ICCA.
There was no evidence. The customer could have betrayed the shop. Or
the box was empty (maybe somebody else had stolen it out of the box!).
I call this service. The shop has the duty to help the customers. The
customers have to be satisfied !
And this although the shop is no organisation to satisfy the
customers.
From my point of view the SHOP is for the customers. Not vice versa.
Without the customers, the shop could not exist !
Therefore a strict and impolite behaviour AGAINST the customers would
be the death-judgement for the shop !
This is what I expect from ICCA because they get money !
And any company that gets an amount of money has to offer a service
and has to be nice to the customers.
Mchess is - from my point of view - like a customer in my image.
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>mclane wrote:
>>
>> I have not accused ICCA of some sort of improper behavior.
>> This exists in your mind. Because you see in almost anything somebody
>> says an attack. If you would live in europe/germany I guess you would
>> feel almost any day attacked by somebody. In a discussion you need to
>> express your point of view. If this is not possible, and is always
>> seen as an attack, democracy is senseless.
>I want to apologize for my tone. You are right. In this newsgroup you
>have been very restrained about this topic.
I accept this Bruce. And I have to excuse myself because I don't want
to fight with you about THEM !
I thought you mixed it up with CCC. No problem.
Please understand that this is ONLY a discussion for me. My feelings
for you and also for other people has not changed because I have a
different opinion. If I am against somebody in a discussion, I can
still be his friend in life. I have different point of views with my
best friends for years now. And I would give much for my friends.
Disagreement in a discussion has nothing to do with feelings towards a
person. From my point of view. Discussions are (at least for me) only
abstract stuff.
The one likes tea, the other guy likes coffee, other beer. And nobody
has EVIDENCE that his drink is better than the drink of the other guy.
And do you really believe I HATE THE GUYS who drink the beer just
because I like drinking tea ?
Please don't forget this.
> I looked back through the
>old posts and found that this is true.
Thanks.
>> My point in the discussion is, that if I would be them, I would have
>> done anything to let Mchess participate.
>I expect that they considered it very carefully. Perhaps you have not
>been on the ICCA mailing list for this. All along they were concerned
>that they had way more entries than they had space, so they had to
>reject entries for upon space reasons.
I am a banned member of the ICCA, so I am of course not in any mailing
list. I am the "devils tool..." :-)
>At the point MChess applied, they had already rejected entries, due to
>lack of space. If they had rejected entries on the basis of strength,
>sure, but the reason that these entries were rejected is that they
>couldn't fit any more into the hall.
Yes - I know there is a space-problem. I hope the alpha machines are
not that big :-) Otherwise you have to put them on your kneed the
whole game !! :-)
>> For you the whole thing is a question of signing before deadline.
>> For me this is a very narrow behaviour.
>> Deadlines and rules and laws are nice, they help to get some order.
>> They make organizing easier.
>> But deadlines/rules/laws are not more important than people/members
>> and exceptions.
>Of course. If they had applied on the 14th, one day before the entries
>were announced, and two weeks after the application deadline, *I* would
>have accepted their entry, because they are so obviously strong, and so
>obviously should be at the tournament.
Right.
>But after the mail has gone out, it is too late. This is not a matter
>of strict adherence to rules that don't matter, it is simply a matter
>that the playing hall is full.
Right.
>This is shame, but it is nothing to complain about, in my opinion.
Right. But i think there are always ways. When some friends want to
sleep in my appartment, I find always a space for somebody. I do never
sent anybody into the frozen german-nature.
>I fully expect that MChess will be there, since someone will drop out.
>Please not Crafty, Bob.
Right. Bob has to participate ! I want to play against Crafty too with
CSTal. And no manipulations possible (althoug Uri Geller told me,
there are some possible methods...) :-)
>bruce
Carl Tillotson
In article <60rvs1$tmn$1...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
> The first thing an operator has to be is: quiet !
So how did you get the job then :-)
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>I want you to stop repeating half of the story. The other half of the
>story, which is the part you should also include, I believe clears
>things up.
You want me to stop posting which story ??
>The application deadline was end of August. Accepted entries were
>supposed to have been chosen and published 10-September. In fact, they
>were published on 15-September.
>MChess applied on 17-September.
>You want to hate the ICCA, fine, but don't report part of the story, the
>part that makes the ICCA look bad.
I don't want to hate the ICCA. The ICCA looks bad when they make
mistakes. nobody is perfect. But you are constantly posting that they
do no mistakes. strange. You forget all the cases where they make
mistakes with a comment like:
1) Oh - not those old stories...
2) I was not there so I don't know if what you claim is right
3) Do you have evidence ?
4) you hate the ICCA
I will tell you something ! If I tell you we have evidence for
something, and I even name the witness, and you still claim:
"I was not there ..."
this shows exactly the ignorant behaviour of those I criticize !
So you behave in no way different like them.
I can't take you serious in those discussions because you behave the
same way. Clear ?
If you have such a selective view of the things (forgetting and not
interested in those cases that proof my point of view, but defending
and selecting those cases that proof your point of view) you prune
forward !
I cannot accept this game.
> If you are going to report the
>story, report the whole thing. Report not only that MChess applied
>late, Peter has a broken foot, Marty is broke, the big bad ICCA put them
>on the waiting list, etc., also report that they applied *way* late,
>after the accepted entries were announced.
I post the things from my point of view. This is a subjective point of
view. If you are the ICCA or friendly involved into their business,
you have maybe a different point of view.
From my point of view an organisation who gets membership-payment each
months for many years, and for each championship 1000 $ cash from the
commercials and even more from the dedicated-machines (4000$ when I
remember it right) their should be a SERVICE !
I am sure NOONE would accept a business company in any other area of
the world (computer, car-mechanics, ...) who behaves this way, taking
on the one hand the money and giving back so less flexible response.
For 1000$ I get normally much. 1000 $ is not less. What do I get for
1000 $ ?!
A tournament-refferee threatening a participant:
Come with me or I kick you in the face ?
This is what I get for 1000$ when I am a world-chess-champion-program!
This is what I criticize.
And all your comments about:
"I have not seen this...
I do not believe you ...
I have seen no evidence..."
cannot fight this.
>This little bit of information *matters*.
>I look forward to seeing Peter and MChess in Paris. I am sure they will
>get a spot on the tournament, since they are number one on the waiting
>list, supposedly.
"I don't think that Mchess / Peter will dive to Paris just to get
informed: sorry, all participants are here - we have no space for you.
Maybe on the toilette..."
>> To construct any theory that they are afraid to participate or that
>> they wanted to do some tactics (looking if their concurrents sign) is
>> not based on reality from my point of view.
>You have never heard *me* say anything like this, at all.
Right. And I have not adressed this to you !
It was adressed to the people who don't know Marty and Peter.
If they would know them, they would know that they are not afraid.
> There is no
>evidence for this point of view, either, so I wouldn't say something
>like this.
Right. There is no evidence. Nowhere do we have evidence. Evidence is
just a definition of somebody who is very impressed by his own words
and point of views. There is no evidence in the world.
>> The fact that you repeatedly ask the same question and I don't asnwer
>> shows no evidence at all. It only shows that I don't answer because
>> Peter knows the date. I am not interested in the date, cause I even
>> don't know when the deadline was.
>I am way interested in the date, because it matters.
For me the date is NOT the problem. I have seen ICCA take
Saitek/Mephisto Risc 2500 into the tournament. Saitek waited until it
was clear there is NO opponent is there so they would get the title
"strongest dedicated machine" without any problems automatically.
This costed 4000 $ and they waited until no other
dedicated-participant subscribed (TASC could have been possible) and
with good connections they were suddenly IN the tournament.
A nice tactician move !
This is what I have seen. Anything is possible with the ICCA and with
the help of good connections IF you pay good enough !
Of course you have not seen this. You were in Paderborn but you were
blind, as usual ! :-)
>> I don't know why Peter is not answering you. I guess he is not anymore
>> posting/reading here because of Rolf Tueschen.
>I don't know what happened between you guys that information came from
>the ICCA to Peter, then all or part of it went to you, then you posted
>some of the information here and we hear nothing from Peter.
Nice pipeline, isn't it !
This is called the INTERNET Bruce.
Maybe Peter does not talk with you because he does not like you and
your agressive style ?! :-)
>But this makes everyone look bad. And nobody should have to look bad
>here, because everything was handled fairly, in my opinion.
In your opinion. Yes.
>bruce
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Bob, that's one of the points, where a borderline to possible negative
>consequences up to character assassination is reached. Marty once wrote
>about his conflict with Stamer and change into another main job without
>however leaving cc, and now this Czub talkes in a worl wide newsgroup
>about Marty's difficulties to pay the 1000$ entrence fee. True or not,
>this is unbelievable. And I want to lead your attention to stuff like
>this because it seems as if you didn't care about such happenings
>whereas you favor a safe RGCP. But you quote stuff like this yourself.
>People like Schroder and Whittington (who again engaged this amoking
>madman) should be aware that they will be responsible and therefore
>taken to task if this Czub accomplishes new character assassinations.
>Who told Czub of the actual financial situation of Marty?
>Chrisw should comment on this as quickly as possible.
>Sure we have a free usenet. But being employed by ChrisW, Czub is not
>free to talk about all he perhaps only knew due to his engagement...
>It looks like a new scandal at the moment. Chris?
Rolf - fuck off and have a nice day payed by the social office !
Eat your cake and stop talking about things you don't understand. Did
you ever met Mr.Stamer ? Do you even know how he looks ?
Forget it Rolf. You know nothing. Speculation is anything you have.
Eat some speculatious instead !
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> It is not a question of FAULT !
> These discussions about : it is who at fault do never help.
> My point was: is ICCA interested in Mchess participating and is ICCA
> FOR the programs or against them.
See, the point I've been trying to make all along is that the ICCA
handled this reasonably, if you present all of the information.
I ask you if you would have handled it differently. I'm at a loss to
figure out how they could have done it better. They had room for X
programs. They selected X programs, sent mail out to all of the
programmers, then got an application from MChess two days later. What do
you do?
> Example:
> I am working in a supermarket.
> A customer who has bought a pocket-calculator (Texas-INstrument) comes
> an hour later again and says:
> There was no pocket calculator in the box. The box you gave me was
> EMPTY ! I am very upset ! I run all the way home, it was raining. And
> now EMPTY !!!
>
> How would you react ?
> You have not looked into the box. It felt heavy when you gave it to
> the customer.
>
> Bruce would maybe ask: Do you have any evidence that the box was empty
> ?
> Of course the customer has NO EVIDENCE that the box was empty !
> What a normal salesman does (to satisfy his customers) is: he takes
> another pocket-calculator and gives it to the customer and excuses
> politely.
I don't know how a store should handle this, but I don't think it has
much relevence to this discussion.
In particular, I don't see that I would be in the role of telling the
customer to stuff it.
The question here isn't whether you can believe the MChess guys, or
whether you should accomodate them. It is possible to believe them, and
to want to accomodate them, and be unable to do it, because the room is
full, and because you want to be fair to other participants.
So perhaps we should discuss a different analogy. How about you put me
in the role of selling airline tickets. There is room for 30 people on
this plane. I have sold all of the tickets, and I have turned away
others who want on the plane, and in fact they are standing over there
waiting, now.
You are an important guy, and I understand that you want to get on the
plane, but the plane is full, and I can't bump anyone "less important",
can I?
So perhaps I will install a new seat on the plane for you. This may be
impossible, perhaps there really is no room, in which case this game is
over. But perhaps I can do it. It may cramp the other passengers, but
assume I can manage to make it almost reasonable.
Now what do you tell those people who are also waiting? That we have
added a seat for you, but a few moments ago, when they wanted me to put
them on the plane, there was no room? So perhaps I have four or five
people mad at me now. And there is *no* way I can add *that* many seats.
Actually, at this point my analogy breaks down, because in order to match
the MChess circumstances I have put put you at the head of the line of
people waiting for a cancellation.
So please tell me how I can make you, the late passenger, happy, without
being unfair to several others.
bruce
brucemo
mclane wrote:
> Yes - I know there is a space-problem. I hope the alpha machines are
> not that big :-) Otherwise you have to put them on your kneed the
> whole game !! :-)
It's just a normal looking PC. It's loud because it's blowing a lot of
air through itself, and it generates more heat than a normal PC.
But you wouldn't be able to tell it was an Alpha unless I told you, or
you noticed that the performance was better for a native app, or worse
for an x86 app, or you noticed that the thing was a little less stable
than a Pentium Pro running the same OS (I assume there are bugs in
porting some software to Alpha).
I don't know what Dark Thought's machine looks like.
bruce
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>In article <343277...@seanet.com>, Brucemo wrote:
>> I don't know what the motivations of the commercial programmers are, but if I
>> didn't go, I would be pretty upset about someone trying to guess why.
>But you are an amateur, the "commerical" programmers don't have an excuse about
>missing a deadline because they didn't think it was a serious one !
>Personally, I am glad MCHESS are on the waiting list and that no precedent has
>been set to allow the commerical's special treatment :-)
Now you are making jokes !
There have always been PRECEDENTS to allow commercials a special
treatment. The only thing is : you don't know about !
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>So perhaps I will install a new seat on the plane for you. This may be
>impossible, perhaps there really is no room, in which case this game is
>over. But perhaps I can do it. It may cramp the other passengers, but
>assume I can manage to make it almost reasonable.
Right. There is always a way. I mentioned the toilette before !
And of course, a plane has some toiletts. :-)
>So please tell me how I can make you, the late passenger, happy, without
>being unfair to several others.
>bruce
I guess the best thing for Peter to do would be to drive to Paris,
take a hammer and an axe and to destroy the hardware of some of his
strongest opponents.
Than they were unable to participate and Mchess would automatically
participate.
Also beeing armed is always a good idea !
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>In article <60rvs1$tmn$1...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
>> The first thing an operator has to be is: quiet !
>So how did you get the job then :-)
When I don't post in rgcc I am very quiet normally.
Mainly when I watch to screens full of computerchess information
(depth, evals, mainline) and correlate them in my mind, I am very
quiet.
Even when my opponent is ANGRY and throwing curses arround, I am still
quiet. And when my opponent breaks down his machine by pulling
something out of the hardware and discusses with the tournament
director I am still very quiet and watching the scene with great
pleasure.
brucemo
mclane wrote:
>
> brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> >So perhaps I will install a new seat on the plane for you. This may be
> >impossible, perhaps there really is no room, in which case this game is
> >over. But perhaps I can do it. It may cramp the other passengers, but
> >assume I can manage to make it almost reasonable.
>
> Right. There is always a way. I mentioned the toilette before !
> And of course, a plane has some toiletts. :-)
No, you snipped something else. The other thing you snipped involved
several other people, who did apply on time, who were *not* accepted.
There was a list of accepted applicants, and some people were not on this
list. These people were not on this list, because there was *no room*.
So if you make room for MChess, then why didn't you make room before, for
one of the ones whose entry was denied?
That is the issue. It's not that there were N applicants, and N were
accepted, and now Mr. N+1 wants in. That would be easy, you'd just
accept Mr. N+1, everything you've said would apply. The problem is that
there is another entry whose application was *not* accepted, for a reason
that is shown to be false if the field is expanded by one for MChess.
What would you tell the 2nd guy on the waiting list (assuming that MChess
is the 1st one), about why his entry wasn't accepted?
How do you respond to his obvious question, if you expand the field by one
in order to let MChess in, about why they didn't expand the field by one in
order to let *him* in, before you announced the entries?
bruce
Ernst A. Heinz
> I don't know what Dark Thought's machine looks like.
Just the same as your Alpha -- standard ATX tower case. The Kryotech
machine has its cooling mechanism built into the lower third of the
tower according to their WWW page at URL = <http://www.kryotech.com>.
The nice thing about current and future generations of DEC Alphas is
that they use standard PC components all the way: PCI controller cards,
EDO/PS-2/SDRAM memory modules, standard EIDE/SCSI peripherals etc.
That's why they are so cheap today -- the only difference to standard
PCs are the CPUs, chipsets, and mainboards.
=Ernst=
Carl Tillotson
In article <610tii$fdn$2...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
> There have always been PRECEDENTS to allow commercials a special
> treatment. The only thing is : you don't know about !
Well, you can't get away with that. If you are saying that the Commercial
products get special treatment in a tournament which is supposed to be above
board and equal for all, then I think you owe the general public at large an
explanation. It's quite clear, that mclane is privy to documents that we the
general public are not able to check out.
If you want to make accusations of foul play, then provide you evidence :-)
mclane
Carl Tillotson <anti...@anti.spam.somewhere.com> wrote:
>Well, you can't get away with that. If you are saying that the Commercial
>products get special treatment in a tournament which is supposed to be above
>board and equal for all, then I think you owe the general public at large an
>explanation. It's quite clear, that mclane is privy to documents that we the
>general public are not able to check out.
Ah - come on Carl. Your ironic tone cannot kill the facts.
I worked 1 1/2 year in the company that was not only in charge for
repairing all kinds of dedicated-chess-computers, but also directed
the operations of saitek (later Mephisto) products on championships:
SCHACH NIGGEMANN.
Mr. Niggemann himself operated saitek machines championship 1993 in
munich.
1995 in paderborn a saitek/mephisto machine participated in the
dedicated-chess-computer class without any opponent.
We brought this "unique"machine to paderborn and a colleague (Karsten
Bauermeister, also working for SCHACH NIGGEMANN) operated it in the
blitz-tournament (cause he is normally a fast-blitz guy with buttons).
I was involved in all these shit manouevers in the dark.
You have no idea how easy it is for those companies that have a
monopol here in germany to operate, to direct behind the scene, to
direct the computer-chess-magazins with "connections" and
advertising-money and to manipulate.
Whenever my boss manipulated or attacked somebody, all the workers in
the company had to stop their work and we were all invited into an
intimate "press-conference" in the caferteria where he told us fax and
negotiations because he was proud of it.
It was a great insight for me.
Also I often studied the FAX-incoming stuff from lawyers and
companies.
You have no idea how corrupt this business is in germany and with how
dirty games it is handled here in germany.
>If you want to make accusations of foul play, then provide you evidence :-)
No - the people having diametral interests would insist here that my
EVIDENCE is a lie. They have to insist on the opposite not because
they believe in it, but because it is their job.
Whenever you try to OPEN the data about any scandal, you will get
attacks in the same public area from people having interests that this
story should better be hidden because it shows their dirty business
politics.
I can understand this. If they would not insist on the lies, their
business would get a damage.
So e.g. Ossi Weiner presented manipulated data about the paderborn
game against Mchess although their exist photographs who show that he
was not saying the truth. And all to show how brilliant genius is. But
he has to suggest this point of view, because he lives from selling
genius-units.
Whenever you see a point of view, ask yourself first: has this guy an
intention ? Is he in an interest conflict ?
When Mr.Malboro suggests that smoking is a healthy thing, would you
believe it ?
mclane
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>No, you snipped something else. The other thing you snipped involved
>several other people, who did apply on time, who were *not* accepted.
>There was a list of accepted applicants, and some people were not on this
>list. These people were not on this list, because there was *no room*.
>So if you make room for MChess, then why didn't you make room before, for
>one of the ones whose entry was denied?
You are - of course - right. This would be unfair.
I would make the space WITHOUT throwing others out.
>What would you tell the 2nd guy on the waiting list (assuming that MChess
>is the 1st one), about why his entry wasn't accepted?
I guess Mchess is the 2nd on the waiting list, first is Kallisto (they
can maybe pay commercial).
>How do you respond to his obvious question, if you expand the field by one
>in order to let MChess in, about why they didn't expand the field by one in
>order to let *him* in, before you announced the entries?
>bruce
You are right. It would not be fair to the others.
What a shit situation !
Often I am in the same situation in my supermarket.
An unfriendly guy wants to get the last video-recorder and a nice
beautiful looking girl, came later, wants the same unit.
Of course I would like to give it to the nice girl, instead of the
unfriendly guy. But that would be unfair...
Rolf Tueschen
Following the strict rules Bob Hyatt created for our group I'm usually
forced to throw away most of my posts before sending them. In WIN95 I
have now a new feature, the protected ashtray. He allows to reconsider
some decisions where it was really not easy to throw away highly
inspired data. Here for example is a post I already had deleted. But
it's a new weekend again. Members are back united with their families
and they don't want to read all this shit about difficult cc language
problems. They want more of a feature pages of a good newspaper. With
some philo and psycho rather than the daily shit and blood stuff. Read
my tiny essay. It was ment to be an exercise to complete my sloppy
english. I had to do this because a lot of fans wrote in private email
that it was a pity. my theories were the best but my english, well, it
was a problem...
Here is what I saved from garbage...
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>No - the people having diametral interests would insist here that my
>EVIDENCE is a lie. They have to insist on the opposite not because
>they believe in it, but because it is their job.
>Whenever you try to OPEN the data about any scandal, you will get
>attacks in the same public area from people having interests that this
>story should better be hidden because it shows their dirty business
>politics.
>I can understand this. If they would not insist on the lies, their
>business would get a damage.
>So e.g. Ossi Weiner presented manipulated data about the paderborn
>game against Mchess although their exist photographs who show that he
>was not saying the truth. And all to show how brilliant genius is. But
>he has to suggest this point of view, because he lives from selling
>genius-units.
>Whenever you see a point of view, ask yourself first: has this guy an
>intention ? Is he in an interest conflict ?
>When Mr.Malboro suggests that smoking is a healthy thing, would you
>believe it ?
Apart all shit past discussions --- is this the reason for the "paranoia
chessica curiosa ultra" in guys like Ed Schroder?
I ask this because he started to outsearch me in the first emails.
Because it was absolutely unimaginable for him that suddenly a no-name
(newbie) entered the scene and asked him, the expert for twenty long
decades, questions that came very close to almost taboo-like blasphemy?
I fear here Czub is right when he once wrote that "a lot" (I changed it
because I hope that it's not *all*) of members of the community are a
bit over the edge due to the life-long dealing with chess.
Because we chessplayers love the almost automatical "Blitz" because
we're so experienced. I once took part in the almost two years training
of a nobody/newcomer from zero to experienced blitz expert.
The first months he concentrated on pure direct responses to train on
that reflex. He was very weak in the overall scores because he couldn't
manage "deaper" stuff. But then he went over to a little bit deaper
stuff and "oh my god" he whipped deap guys like me off the board simply
due to his overall speed. I had one won game after another gone down the
gutter because it was me in the end who had to have these spikes on. But
I never trained on that brain-amputated fast play without even
*thinking*. :)
So, chessguys might have the illness of automatical responses... :)
But this does only function in already discovered territories. Good
analogy?
What mclane always propagated, the importance to look at the content and
not the headers is almost always been done by the anglo-american
posters. <Applause>
But german members of the group tend to concentrate on names. Also the
SSDF guys had this "illness" (mclane). I was asking my first questions
as newbie and was greeted as menber of the german anti-SSDF mafia. A
company I really never had heard of before.
Same with A. Mader. No doubt a highly experienced author. But the first
action of him against me was doubting my newbie status for a time-out of
two weeks or such some. Afterwards he commited suicide for a period of
two months.. :)
Then I got emails if I were not in reality the well known Czub... ROTFL.
I must admit, that only a few experiences with psychiatry saved my soul
from drifting... (But that doesn't mean that I'm not asking myself if
Czub could be Karsten Bauernmeister in reality? But I won't check this
because the world is so much brighter with two more experts.......)
And again Schroder. It's not to believe. He almost asked half a dozen
times the same questions like a prosecutor trying to destabilize the
defendent.
I also met advisors who wanted to correct my style from my very first
post on. They tried to correct my vision about the understanding of
usenet posts. If that didn't work I got first hints of the existence of
kill-files and that I was by now the very first one being into that
list... :)
When I was in talkings :) with Ed Schroder I was suddenly surprised by a
Djirk Frickenschmidt, I never read of and who had never before mentioned
my name. but suddenly he declared a religious war and it was clear that
he wrote as if sent in 'mission impossible' by -- who? -- one of our
gods, Ed Schroder I can only assume. But in doing this Dirk F. confused
important parts which I had never written at all... (this is called
Rohrkrepierer in german, sort of exploding in your own pipeline
system..., medically a case of diarrhea explosionea :))
Then I observed -- since I read the group -- that Bob Hyatt was the
lawyer of the DB/ICCA/higher academic expert party. But when it came to
DB in particular he almost automatically lost his temper and got
furious. That's interesting because DB is not at all the program Bob
cares for. His own is called crafty. And about crafty you are allowed to
say or ask whatever you want. Bob will always give you sound and calm
replies. But don't try this on DB and Bob will explode like a mini
atomic bomb in the F12 key on your computer ... He will lose all good
kindergarten manners and will bite you like a vampire. This close
contact is called ad hominem arguing in science. In reality it's like
the Tyson bite. And I have already more than one ear recycled due to my
pushy analysing of DB related stuff. But what is the worth of an ear
compared with the truth in science? I beg you all. I mean we will die
cause of too *many* and not too *few* cells, no? No rule without
exception, Alzheimer is another story.
Once a famous spanish motion picture director described the deep
affection a programer had for his *baby*. But what is Bob doing with DB?
Isn't it the forbidden "love" for children of other parents? Even with
my wisdom I was unable this hard nut to crack. BTW I fear my english
really still sucks. :)
mclane
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Once a famous spanish motion picture director described the deep
>affection a programer had for his *baby*. But what is Bob doing with DB?
>Isn't it the forbidden "love" for children of other parents? Even with
>my wisdom I was unable this hard nut to crack. BTW I fear my english
>really still sucks. :)
And now Rolf ?
All these guys are attacking you and YOU are the victim ???
When Ossi Weiner or Mephisto or Saitek or Stamer or Novag is not
saying the truth, they have an intention !
When you do it, there is no intention. You really believe that YOUR
point of view of the reality is real , true??
Nothing against this. Anybody can believe whatever he wants. The only
problem is:
Don't you have sometimes the idea that ALL THE PEOPLE ATTACKING YOU
and you as the only lonely vicitim DEFENDING yourself is maybe not the
real point of view of the story ??
Couldn't it be vice versa ??
Carl Tillotson
In article <615l0p$os3$4...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>, Mclane wrote:
> Whenever you see a point of view, ask yourself first: has this guy an
> intention ? Is he in an interest conflict ?
Now that sounds rich coming from the guy who went overboard in his attempts
to say that there was no underhand tactics in place when MCHESS got it's
publicity department (aka mclane) to plead "special treatment" for getting
inclusion into the WCCCA (or whatever it is called) :-0 (Big ironic smiley)
> When Mr.Malboro suggests that smoking is a healthy thing, would you
> believe it ?
Of course, cough cough splutter.....
Actually never smoked in my life so I can't possibly comment :-)
Harald
quoting a mail from mcl...@prima.ruhr.de
> So e.g. Ossi Weiner presented manipulated data about the paderborn
> game against Mchess although their exist photographs who show that he
> was not saying the truth. And all to show how brilliant genius is. But
Can you enlighten us and tell what the photograph shows and what Ossi said/
wrote?
> he has to suggest this point of view, because he lives from selling
> genius-units.
He'll probably be waiting eagerly on Genius6 and in the meantime he
invents new powerbooks... :-)
> Whenever you see a point of view, ask yourself first: has this guy an
> intention ? Is he in an interest conflict ?
> When Mr.Malboro suggests that smoking is a healthy thing, would you
> believe it ?
Some don't have a problem, like Ed.
Harald Faber
mclane
>wrote?
Paderborn 1995, playoffgame Mchess5 vs. Genius.
The game is printed in CSS 6/95 page 19.
Before the game OW smiles and loads a special book called:
ANTI-MCHESS-BOOK.
It follows a deep opening-line with a sac in the 19th move.
OW: this was played by Genius out of book. He claims Genius was out of
book in move 13, this is said in CSS 6/95 page 29, right column.
He further claims Mchess-advertising lies with saying that OW tried
with a special opening-book.
There exists a photograph taken from the screen of Genius, that shows
the Genius clocks !
There you can see that Genius has lost NO time with playing the moves.
The sac was prepared out of the anti-mchess-book Mr.Weiner loaded
before the game with a smiling face.
The fact that he denies having done this and praises the move, and
turns the whole stuff into a lie of his enemy is a very nice
turnarround, isn't it.
>> When Mr.Malboro suggests that smoking is a healthy thing, would you
>> believe it ?
>Some don't have a problem, like Ed.
Right. Ed is not that type of guy.
>Harald Faber