Blatherskites
Michael Alford
blather (1640-50; Blather + Scots skite, skate, an objectionable person)
My name is Michael Alford, formerly known to this group as "malf". Some time
ago, I withdrew from this group for the second time, my intention at that time
being never to involve myself in this group again for reasons as stated: "for
what this group has become." Since then, I have received unending emails,
messages, etc ad nauseum, imploring me not to let tweet and jb stand before
this group alone. When I withdrew, it was for the incredible insults offered
on this group to IGS, PandaNet, and NKB. At that time, I checked with those
concerned, and was assured that nothing I had said, done, or posted had
contributed in any way to the state of affairs that then existed. I withdrew
in good conscience. Since then, the rats and cockroaches have really crawled
out of the walls... "malf" is dead. That clown caricature will not be
resurrected on this group, this group is no longer funny, and posting to it is
no longer fun. Hence forth, my posts to this group will be made in all
seriousness, and I will not engage in debate with certain people. I wish to
start by stating that, from curiosity and research effort, I know more about
the NNGS/IGS/Van Riper fiasco than anyone else posting here with the exception
of tweet. Recently, there has been all kinds of misinformation and outright
lies posted here concerning IGS and tweet. These will no longer go
unchallenged.
Mostly, as with the first time I returned, my postings will serve the purpose
of presenting newer rgg readers and Go players the truth about certain
situations. Let's get to it:
Recently, jb posted an article concerning a certain selection process.
Predictable as sunrise, the usual filth showed up, and the usual crap was
posted. KGS was indeed eliminated early on in the evaluation process, and it
is no wonder why to anyone who has been paying attention. Why was KGS
eliminated? Here are some reasons: Bill Shubert, Steve Fawthrop, Patrick
Bridges, and Brent Locher. Contributing factors include: Planar,
PhysicsGenius, Mark Galecki, Goetze, "james", et al. And what is it that these
people have done? Insulted tweet and the other IGS admins. Insulted NKB, and
by extension the RICOH Pairs, over 90% of the professionals in Japan. Insulted
PandaNet, which is responsible for most of the Go promotion being done today.
Insulted PandaNet-IGS, which is part of the Agency for Cultural Affairs,
thereby not only insulting the Japanese educational system, but the Japanese
government, and by extension, every person living in Japan. Frankly, I am
surprised Usenet abuse is not flooded with complaints. Maybe it is.
Here, then, is a partial list of blatherskites. Remember that anything posted
by any of these people is _highly_ suspect; they have an agenda, and speak
with little or no real knowledge. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.
Give none of them any credence.
There was an article posted here about "IGS's reputation before the group."
What a fucking joke. IGS's reputation before the world at large is impeccable.
Only on this group, due to the efforts of a very small minority, is IGS's
reputation in any way tarnished. What should concern these people more is the
reputation of this group, and their names, before the World at large. When you
read articles posted here that are derogatory of IGS and its admins, consider
the source.
Michael
Big Duck
Welcome back my friend!
I am so glad that you have decided to return. I must admit, that IGS has
been getting put on the ropes lately. I think that your return will serve
IGS and the go community very well. As far as social rejects are concerned
, you have far more clout then jb. What shall we do to convince the world
that a maximus go server has every right to ban people for the opinions they
express, for the web pages they write, for the go servers they associate
with and for the clothes they sell and or wear?
Some people are very silly to not realize that fearless leaders of great
enterprises can do anything required to hold onto their power. If tweet
were to let go of his power, I fear that the whole go world would crumble.
I am so glad you have decided to return! A great reward awits you my
friend!
Lets ban them all for tweet! Lets keep go pure! Long live server maximus!
Your very good friend,
Big Duck
PS I hate slow turtle!
BTW - do you think we can take out NNGS/KGS? Or at least dictate who their
admins are?
PSS Oh it is so very good to have you back!!
Michael Alford
In article <aIO6b.3441$Kt1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>, "Big Duck"
<hit...@itsallmine.com> wrote:
>Path:
> spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.tel
>us.net!news3.optonline.net!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!f
>e3.columbus.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: "Big Duck" <hit...@itsallmine.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.games.go
>References: <bjga0...@enews2.newsguy.com>
>Subject: Re: Blatherskites
>Lines: 33
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>Message-ID: <aIO6b.3441$Kt1....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
>Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:56:06 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.160.168.12
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@rr.com
>X-Trace: fe3.columbus.rr.com 1062975366 24.160.168.12 (Sun, 07 Sep 2003
> 18:56:06 EDT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 18:56:06 EDT
>Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
>Xref: spln rec.games.go:76517
>Status: N
Big Duck
news:bjgfu...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> First, only, and last response: fuck you, luser!
>
Michael!
I know that you are out of practice with your swearing at people you
disagree with. I feel priviledged to stand here as a sounding board for the
arguments you intend to make to the readers of rgg! I think that was a very
convincing use of intimidating language. I think you are ready to start
swearing at the KGS and NNGS supporters going forward from here! They
should curl up into useles little balls of mush once you start swearing at
them! Keep up the good work.
Malf, my buddy, please feel free to use me as a sounding board any time in
the future!
Long Live IGS, Long live Tweet.
A reward awaits you malf! We are bound together for the destiny of all of
go
In tweets service,
Big Duck
>
Michael!
I know that you are out of practice with your swearing at people you
disagree with. I feel priviledged to stand here as a sounding board for the
arguments you intend to make to the readers of rgg! I think that was a very
convincing use of intimidating language. I think you are ready to start
swearing at the KGS and NNGS supporters going forward from here! They
should curl up into useles little balls of mush once you start swearing at
them! Keep up the good work.
Malf, my buddy, please feel free to use me as a sounding board any time in
the future!
Long Live IGS, Long live Tweet.
A reward awaits you malf! We are bound together for the destiny of all of
go
In tweets service,
Big Duck
Julia
> Only on this group, due to the efforts of a very small minority, is
> IGS's reputation in any way tarnished. What should concern these
> people more is the reputation of this group, and their names, before
> the World at large. When you read articles posted here that are
> derogatory of IGS and its admins, consider the source.
Here is a newsflash -- no one really cares about all of this
IGS/everyone-else fighting. The vast majority of the people here wish
you six (now seven) people would just shutup and play Go.
Michael Alford
>Here is a newsflash -- no one really cares about all of this
>IGS/everyone-else fighting. The vast majority of the people here wish
>you six (now seven) people would just shutup and play Go.
Heh, come and get it :) I am 2d on IGS and I play lots of free games :-)
Robert Blair
wrote:
> Recently, there has been all kinds of misinformation and outright
> lies posted here concerning IGS and tweet. These will no longer go
> unchallenged.
Since I do not use any GO server I have nothing to say about them. I
can only see what is posted on rgg. None of the people who claim to
speak for IGS, on rgg, do any good for its reputation. It appears
that all they want is to control internet GO. If I had anything to do
with IGS I would make sure that they would not deal with the public,
they may know their job but they do not seem to know how to respond to
public criticism in a reasonable manner.
> Recently, jb posted an article concerning a certain selection process.
The subject of this message applies the jb more than anyone I know.
It is normal when making comparisons to not select all entities of a
group. This is because you do not think they are comparable, or you
don't want to know what the results would be with them included.
Saying that they were not selected because you do not like the
comments of certain people is a cop out for not giving the real reason
they were not selected.
--
Robert Blair
mullens
>
> In bjgkg...@enews2.newsguy.com, « Michael Alford » <ma...@spiritone.com>
> wrote :
>
> > Heh, come and get it :) I am 2d on IGS and I play lots of free games :-)
>
> Game: go (1)
> Language: default
> Rating: 4k* 26
> Rated Games: 41
> Rank: NR 0
> Wins: 320
> Losses: 434
> Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Sat Sep 6 19:25:28 2003
> Last Access(local): (Not on) Sun Sep 7 04:25:28 2003
> Address: ma...@spiritone.com
> Reg date: Tue Feb 23 04:39:33 1999
> Info: Old Man of the forest, IGSer since Sept 94
Yes, but he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that
Big Duck is 9p
ian
soaked rod in message for all the matches to see
news:<bjga0...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
<snip>
>
> Mostly, as with the first time I returned, my postings will serve the purpose
> of presenting newer rgg readers and Go players the truth about certain
> situations. Let's get to it:
>
> Recently, jb posted an article concerning a certain selection process.
> Predictable as sunrise, the usual filth showed up, and the usual crap was
> posted.
I'm glad you see jb's posts for what they really are.
> KGS was indeed eliminated early on in the evaluation process, and it
> is no wonder why to anyone who has been paying attention.
Not the mythical evaluation process again!
> Why was KGS
> eliminated? Here are some reasons: Bill Shubert, Steve Fawthrop, Patrick
> Bridges, and Brent Locher. Contributing factors include: Planar,
> PhysicsGenius, Mark Galecki, Goetze, "james", et al. And what is it that these
> people have done?
Oh you've realised you haven't actually given reasons there, just
names ;-)
Insulted tweet and the other IGS admins. Insulted NKB, and
> by extension the RICOH Pairs, over 90% of the professionals in Japan. Insulted
> PandaNet, which is responsible for most of the Go promotion being done today.
> Insulted PandaNet-IGS, which is part of the Agency for Cultural Affairs,
> thereby not only insulting the Japanese educational system, but the Japanese
> government, and by extension, every person living in Japan. Frankly, I am
> surprised Usenet abuse is not flooded with complaints. Maybe it is.
Right lets not try and push the boat out with this arguement and
become hysterical shall we? Clearly rgg is pushing the world to the
brink of war with Japan.
>
> Here, then, is a partial list of blatherskites. Remember that anything posted
> by any of these people is _highly_ suspect; they have an agenda, and speak
> with little or no real knowledge. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.
> Give none of them any credence.
I suspect the actual reason for this post was to attempt to stop jb
and tweet becoming even more killfiled than they already are. I can't
see anything positive in your post, it is merely serving so far to
badmouth respectable people. It is important to realise that usenet is
not a forum for this kind of activity.
>
> There was an article posted here about "IGS's reputation before the group."
> What a fucking joke.
Well I wouldn't go that far...
> IGS's reputation before the world at large is impeccable.
Oh sorry I understand now ...
> Only on this group, due to the efforts of a very small minority, is IGS's
> reputation in any way tarnished.
Oh so it isn't impreccable then. ;-)
How am I supposed to argue with you if you keep up this self
contradiction?
> What should concern these people more is the
> reputation of this group, and their names, before the World at large. When you
> read articles posted here that are derogatory of IGS and its admins, consider
> the source.
>
> Michael
Personally having looked at your previous posts I'm reaching for the
killfile now. Recently it has been quite depressing to see the
numeracy of aggressively headed threads in the newsgroup - this is
just another one. For the good of this newsgroup I wish people would
stop posting such things. If you want to troll at least have the
decency to keep it in one thread and not add flooding to your list of
usenet crimes. Starting new threads deliberately designed to start
flame, with personalised headers seeking rather crassly to bait you
target are not what anyone wants to read.
Grow up and post some threads about Go!
Fu, Ren-Li
I need to know how people act in certain situations.
When I watch someone attempt character assasination, I instantly know what
kind of person they are, a snake in the grass. Beat the grass to view the
snake. So I just ask a few questions, perhaps heated ones, pointed ones, and
it's obvious.
Let's see. If I insult IGS, I am not insulting NKB. Nor 90% of pros. That's
bad logic. That's not how people think. And if it was true, then the
professionals and NKB will soon realise that the source of these insults is
the mismanagement of IGS. Hopefully they will then separate themselves from
it, or IGS from NKB.
Furthermore I don't think anyone is insulting the japanese educational
system. I played a game or two with you malf and you seemed nice enough, I
didn't realise you were taken to such strange leaps of logic.
Every go player I meet in toronto is either on KGS or plans to go there in
the near future. I attend several clubs regularly. If toronto, the biggest
city in canada is any pulse on the preference of a go playing nation, then
IGS's reputation is not as impeccable as you would have us believe.
Tweet's reputation is starting to proceed him. So would it be with anyone
who posts baseless personal attacks. Remember me malf? Don't say anything
about me you remember, but just between you and me do you remember playing
me as xinjia or kungfu? What kind of a player was I? Just between you and
me.
But look at what jb and tweet said..
Why malf, why?
-frl
Richard Lancashire
> Only on this group, due to the efforts of a very small minority, is IGS's
> reputation in any way tarnished.
That minority consisting in no small part of the IGS representatives.
Cheers
Rich
Steve Fawthrop
It appears however that he is attributing qualities to me which I do not
possess, as quote below. I will respond to this by simply stating that I
have nothing against any of the organizations mentioned below. I have the
utmost respect for all Japanese cultural entities and met my wife because of
this (she has been an official representative from this country to Japan,
which is probably much more than malf can say ). Furthermore I have nothing
at all against IGS. It is a good place to play and when I am permitted I
play there occasionally. The go community owns a lot to IGS. My only
objection is to tweet and his cronies. It is sad that for most people here
IGS and tweet are synonymous.
Now, what is the chance that jb, malf, tweet etc. will quote THIS message in
the future, as they quote and misconstrue several of my other messages?
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote in message
news:6c099e00.03090...@posting.google.com...
> ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) cast out his juicy petroleum
>
> > Why was KGS
> > eliminated? Here are some reasons: Bill Shubert, Steve Fawthrop, Patrick
> > Bridges, and Brent Locher. Contributing factors include: Planar,
> > PhysicsGenius, Mark Galecki, Goetze, "james", et al. And what is it that
these
> > people have done?
.>
-
mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
"Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:
> ... Saying that they were not selected because you do not
> like the comments of certain people is a cop out for not
> giving the real reason they were not selected.
No, actually some remarks of Go Server "associates",
and (putative) "advocates", were -instrumental- in evaluation.
> ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote:
>> Recently, jb posted an article concerning a certain selection
>> process. Predictable as sunrise, the usual filth showed up, and
>> the usual crap was posted.
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> I'm glad you see jb's posts for what they really are.
Malf was referencing what "crap" was showing up by way of
reply, ironically the same sort of pattern which you evinced now.
> ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote:
>> KGS was indeed eliminated early on in the evaluation process, and
>> it is no wonder why to anyone who has been paying attention.
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> Not the mythical evaluation process again!
I detect your reluctance to accord -reality- to evaluation processes?
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> Right lets not try and push the boat out with this arguement and
> become hysterical shall we? Clearly rgg is pushing the world to the
> brink of war with Japan.
Why had Panama declared war on Japan, on December 1, 1941?
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> I suspect the actual reason for this post was to attempt to stop jb
> and tweet becoming even more killfiled than they already are. I can't
> see anything positive in your post, it is merely serving so far to
> badmouth respectable people. It is important to realise that usenet is
> not a forum for this kind of activity.
It is important to realize that the manner of "free speech" on
USENET is compelling argument for disallowing the same on such
entities as moderated chatrooms and/or channels on Go Server(s).
After your use of badmouth, you then complain about its presence.
> ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote:
>> IGS's reputation before the world at large is impeccable.
>>
>> Only on this group, due to the efforts of a very small minority, is IGS's
>> reputation in any way tarnished.
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> Oh so it isn't impreccable then. ;-)
> How am I supposed to argue with you if you keep up this self
> contradiction?
Because, if you read the English Language words before your
face, you will see "before the world at large" contrasted with "only
on this group." Unfortunately, Cambridge scholars are not very
much versed in the simple tasks that manage to -avoid- dyslexia.
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> ... I'm reaching for the killfile now.
Don't let me stop you.
"ian" <ian....@durge.org> wrote:
> For the good of this newsgroup I wish people would stop posting
> such things.
Oh? Are you going someday to assert what is "good" for this
newsgroup? Wouldn't you need to eat from that tree of knowledge?
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I don't need to know the truth about certain arguments.
Pretty well sums up most all of your activity on this newsgroup.
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I need to know how people act in certain situations.
What for?
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> ... If I insult IGS, I am not insulting NKB.
Actually you are, because IGS/PandaNet is one of NKB's stepchildren.
IGS Policy promulgations were sourced all the way from NKB Corp. HQ.
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> ... the professionals and NKB will soon realise that the source
> of these insults is the mismanagement of IGS.
I've asked repeatedly for evidence of mismanagement, but all that
arrives are complaints about management that -applies- NKB policies.
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> But look at what jb and tweet said..
Others were saying it. After some research the matter was
concluded as a serious infraction of courtesy (though not policy).
If there were "mismanagement" this consisted of not banning you.
"Steve Fawthrop" <now...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Now, what is the chance that jb, malf, tweet etc. will quote THIS message in
> the future, as they quote and misconstrue several of my other messages?
Which (other) messages of yours were misconstrued? This,
as well as numerous questions posed, you are leaving dangling.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribes alarmed by size of salmon kill
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/137457_fishkill01.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Gruen
> Bill Shubert, Steve Fawthrop, Patrick
> Bridges, and Brent Locher. Contributing factors include: Planar,
> PhysicsGenius, Mark Galecki, Goetze, "james", et al. And what is it that these
> people have done? Insulted tweet and the other IGS admins. Insulted NKB, and
> by extension the RICOH Pairs, over 90% of the professionals in Japan. Insulted
> PandaNet, which is responsible for most of the Go promotion being done today.
just for the record: unless "-", Tweet and yourself Mr. Shubert has
never insulted any person or organisation on r.g.g. Neither some other
persons on the list have done this.
you should have stayed in your hole instead of blaming IGS with your
boring flames.
btw: *plonk*
Tweedie
>just for the record: unless "-", Tweet and yourself Mr. Shubert has
>never insulted any person or organisation on r.g.g. Neither some other
>persons on the list have done this.
I have email stating that Mr. Shubert insulted them for statements
they made in r.g.g. I do have permission to post the email.
Fumitaka Hayashi
he being sarcastic and cleverly being anti-IGS?
-
fhay...@yahoo.com (Fumitaka Hayashi) wrote:
> I'm still a bit confused. Is Mr. Alford trying to be pro-IGS, or is
> he being sarcastic and cleverly being anti-IGS?
I assume that you might be referencing Mr. Alford's use of some
language translated from one or more episodes of _Hikaru_no_Go_.
Well: agreed that the talk of junior-high schoolkids is surprising
from one whose wisdom years are not exactly descending upon
those "shoulders of responsibility" with a fierce vengeance. At the
same time, such chitchats yadda-yadda are typically found among
veteran military medics who may have been coping with battlefield
injuries, both to self and to others. I understand that there was a
high-level "tete-a-tete" among the Ministers of Japanese Culture,
concerning _Hikaru_no_Go_, which nevertheless got a "Go ahead"
so it was all systems Go for some master blaster in the Go-Godzilla.
- regards
- jb
mullens
>
> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
>
> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
>
I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Insulted PandaNet-IGS, which is part of the Agency for Cultural Affairs,
>thereby not only insulting the Japanese educational system, but the Japanese
>government,
It is difficult to believe that _anything_ connected with go could
deserve the calumny the Japanese "educational" system and government
deserve. The evils involved are simply not commensurable.
Personally, I doubt that the Agency for Cult-ural Affairs has much to
do with promoting the _cult_ of rent seeking that has given the
Japanese people over a decade of economic stagnation and made IGS such
a barrier to free, convenient, enjoyable online play.
But I could be wrong.
>and by extension, every person living in Japan.
Garbage. I know many people living in Japan who are aware of how
corrupt and incompetent the Japanese government ("government by and
for rent seekers") is.
-- Roy L
-
>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
> "-" wrote:
>> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
But I am not sure that you know what "9p" means. You would seem
to -entertain- a misimpression that "9p" is dishonest, lacking integrity,
uncommunicative, askew from the facts, insipid, asinine, and deluded.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------
DNA tests sought 'for every Briton'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3088920.stm
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote:
>> ... Insulted PandaNet-IGS, which is part of the Agency for Cultural
>> but the Japanese government,
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> It is difficult to believe that _anything_ connected with go could
> deserve the calumny the Japanese "educational" system and
> government deserve. The evils involved are simply not commensurable.
Do you mean to say that Japanese education spends too much
effort at preserving Japan's culture and way of life, and not enough
on fast-foods, drugs, football, and rock'n-roll? On the face of it, you
would sustain the incumbence to demonstrate why the game of Go
was actively preserved in Japan, both by her "educational" system
and also by her government, while other nations have less longevity.
> Personally, I doubt that the Agency for Cult-ural Affairs has much to
> do with promoting the _cult_ of rent seeking that has given the
> Japanese people over a decade of economic stagnation and made
> IGS such a barrier to free, convenient, enjoyable online play.
Japan's economy is among the top three or five worldwide,
last I checked. Which might not be saying much, actually, as the
system crashes with all economies going down the vacuum tubes.
> I know many people living in Japan who are aware of how corrupt
> and incompetent the Japanese government ("government by and
> for rent seekers") is.
Hmmm. Such as Japanese CEO's earning barely fifteen times
what entry-level workers make, while USA CEO's might earn as
much as five hundred times or more, what entry level workers make?
Why don't you set an example for social democracy in the country
that claims to know so much about it, by starting at your doorstep?
- regards
- jb
mullens
>
> >> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
>
> > "-" wrote:
> >> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
>
> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
>
> But I am not sure that you know what "9p" means. You would seem
> to -entertain- a misimpression that "9p" is dishonest, lacking integrity,
> uncommunicative, askew from the facts, insipid, asinine, and deluded.
>
and (appropriately enough) never ruffled !
Richard
-
>>>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
> "-" wrote:
>> But I am not sure that you know what "9p" means. You would seem
>> to -entertain- a misimpression that "9p" is dishonest, lacking integrity,
>> uncommunicative, askew from the facts, insipid, asinine, and deluded.
mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> No, by 9p I mean very skilled at his trade, as he is entertaining,
> interesting, and (appropriately enough) never ruffled !
Hardly entertaining, interesting or unruffled, to be wrong on the facts.
- regards
- jb
==============================================
To illustrate, -THIS- would be entertaining, interesting, unruffled:
Billy Mitchell was asked, during his 1930s court-martial, what
nation out there might consider launching prestrike air attack from
aircraft carriers. He said "Japan" and was laughed out of court,
even predicting the Pearl Harbor site. Prescience, or conspiracy?
... the most famous and controversial figure in American airpower history.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/mitch.html
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/cooke3.html
Billy Mitchell's Special Congressional Medal of Honor
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/postwwi/bmcmoh.htm
Billy Mitchell - Advocate of Air Power
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/mitchell/AP12.htm
Billy Mitchell -- Airpower Advocate
http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_mitchell.html
Billy Mitchell Sinks the Ships
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/mitchell_tests/AP14.htm
"Finally, in February 1921, the navy could not ignore Mitchell anymore.
Testifying before the House subcommittee on aviation, Mitchell stated
that 1000 bomber aircraft could be built and operated for the cost of
one dreadnought and that his airplanes could sink a battleship. He
volunteered to demonstrate this if the navy would provide him with
some battleships, which were already due to be demolished. The navy
reluctantly agreed to the demonstrations."
Billy Mitchell: Air Power Visionary
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blbillymitchell1.htm
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blbillymitchell2.htm
"...returning from the latter trip in 1924, he wrote a shocking
323-page report--probably the most prophetic document of his
career--that stressed that, when making estimates of Japanese air
power, `care must be taken that it is not underestimated.'"
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blbillymitchell3.htm
"Mitchell believed that Japan was the dominant nation in Asia and was
preparing to do battle with the United States. He predicted that air
attacks would be made by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the
Philippines and described how they would be conducted.
"His report was received with all the enthusiasm of `a green demolition
team approaching an unexploded bomb,' according to one writer. The
report was ignored; it is said that even his boss did not read it for
two years."
WILLIAM "BILLY" MITCHELL - 1879 - 1936
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/mitchell.htm
The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell (1955)
http://www.amctv.com/show/detail/0,,723-1-EST,00.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6300208060/104-5678267-0841508?v=glance
: Except for Billy Mitchell, no one had even thought before 12/7/41
: that the Japanese could pull off such an attack...
There were a few others, e.g., Ellis Zacharias; and also two of
the Annual Naval Exercises held during the 1920s and 1930s showed
the impact and likely success of carrier-based air attacks on bases like
Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal.
< click on the URL below for historic photos >
http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/wwii/doolittle/doolittle.html
The Doolittle Raid on Tokyo Mission: Strike the Japanese Home Islands
"Jimmy Doolittle was a career officer in the US Army Air Corps.
He joined the army in 1917, but didn't see any action in WWI. He
became an instructor quite early in his career and then went on
to set many flying records between 1917 and 1930, gaining
publicity for the Air Corps. He also took part in a demonstration
led by General Billy Mitchell which proved that air power could
make obsolete the navy idea that battleships should be the first
line of naval offense."
==============================================
mullens
>
> >>>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>>> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
>
> >>> "-" wrote:
> >>>> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
>
> >> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
>
> > "-" wrote:
> >> But I am not sure that you know what "9p" means. You would seem
> >> to -entertain- a misimpression that "9p" is dishonest, lacking integrity,
> >> uncommunicative, askew from the facts, insipid, asinine, and deluded.
>
> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > No, by 9p I mean very skilled at his trade, as he is entertaining,
> > interesting, and (appropriately enough) never ruffled !
>
> Hardly entertaining, interesting or unruffled, to be wrong on the facts.
>
certain plausbility about it. If it were implausible, then there would be no
need for the vigorous denials. It is a very hard battle indeed for IGS.
The trouble, as I see it, is that there is the battle for market share and
the battle for the hearts and minds. The two should be complementary, if
they are opposed, both will fail. Winning hearts and minds includes being nice
to Big Duck and his confederates. A tough one I'd say !
Patrick Bridges
> The way that I see it is that it may be exaggerated (perhaps), but
> there is a certain plausbility about it. If it were implausible,
> then there would be no need for the vigorous denials. It is a very
> hard battle indeed for IGS. The trouble, as I see it, is that there
> is the battle for market share and the battle for the hearts and
> minds. The two should be complementary, if they are opposed, both
> will fail. Winning hearts and minds includes being nice to Big Duck
> and his confederates. A tough one I'd say !
This reminds me of two old sayings which I try to keep in mind; apply
as you see fit:
"It isn't smart to argue with a fool. Listeners often can't tell which
is which."
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig has a good
time."
--
Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.unm.edu GPG ID = CB074C71
GPG fingerprint = FEEA ECFF 1E23 148C 2804 FDD9 DB63 6993 CB07 4C71
"Anyone that can't make money on Sports Night should get out of the
money-making business" - Calvin, on the last episode of Sports Night
mullens
>
> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > The way that I see it is that it may be exaggerated (perhaps), but
> > there is a certain plausbility about it. If it were implausible,
> > then there would be no need for the vigorous denials. It is a very
> > hard battle indeed for IGS. The trouble, as I see it, is that there
> > is the battle for market share and the battle for the hearts and
> > minds. The two should be complementary, if they are opposed, both
> > will fail. Winning hearts and minds includes being nice to Big Duck
> > and his confederates. A tough one I'd say !
>
> This reminds me of two old sayings which I try to keep in mind; apply
> as you see fit:
>
> "It isn't smart to argue with a fool. Listeners often can't tell which
> is which."
>
> "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig has a good
> time."
This is sheer entertainment, but probably rather inconsequential.
I appreciate your advice - It seems sound. If we are to get gems
like the URL that Tweet posted, the groundwork needs to be done.
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/foul.html claimed 2000 hits. Astonishing.
http://80.4.116.219/concentration.jpeg has only had 85.
-
>>>>>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ... he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that Big Duck is 9p
>>>>> "-" wrote:
>>>>>> Oh? Does "Big Duck" get paid for flaming? By whom?
>>>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am sure that you know what I mean ;-)
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> But I am not sure that you know what "9p" means. You would seem
>>>> to -entertain- a misimpression that "9p" is dishonest, lacking integrity,
>>>> uncommunicative, askew from the facts, insipid, asinine, and deluded.
>> mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> No, by 9p I mean very skilled at his trade, as he is entertaining,
>>> interesting, and (appropriately enough) never ruffled !
> "-" wrote:
>> Hardly entertaining, interesting or unruffled, to be wrong on the facts.
mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The way that I see it is that it may be exaggerated (perhaps), but there
> is a certain plausbility about it. If it were implausible, then there would
> be no need for the vigorous denials. It is a very hard battle indeed for
> IGS. The trouble, as I see it, is that there is the battle for market share and
> the battle for the hearts and minds. The two should be complementary, if
> they are opposed, both will fail. Winning hearts and minds includes being
> nice to Big Duck and his confederates. A tough one I'd say !
As to be expected, even on a "no nonsense" thread such as this,
the conversation drifts naturally toward the game of Go, or at least
perhaps theory of Go. The net effect of all Servers warring to obtain
their "market share" is that merely of Go Introduction (or Education),
and irrespective of the Server(s) upon which they play, the players
eventually meet up face-to-face at official tournaments. Or they will
"meet up indirectly" throughout the self-adjusting ratings percolation
worldwide. Nevertheless, suppose that a contingency model is the
more likely candidate for Go Theory: that one might require some
means for response even in the event of losing both "market share"
and "hearts and minds." The Go Players needs flexibility & resilience,
not merely just spontaneity and naturalness. Here, for example, was
an interesting topic concerning random walks, also posed by Bill Taylor,
which was rapidly solved. Then further -elaborations- were necessary.
The "return probability" to (0,0) happens to be the same as any of its
immediate neighbors. When explaining "random walks" to newbies,
even working at Microsoft not 35-feet from the office of Bill Gates,
make certain that they understand how "random walks" occur on
"arbitrarily large" lattices, which could exceed the 640 Kbyte limit.
Note also, that when given two points "A" & "B", from which random
walks exit "A" until ending at "B", that the likelihood of approach to
to "B" from any direction, (North, South, East, West) is equiprobable.
This might at first glance seem counterintuitive, because "A" & "B"
share a relative directional orientation with regards to each other.
- regards
- jb
==========================================================
From: Bill Taylor (w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz)
Subject: Random Walk result request.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 2003-09-03 00:00:12 PST
Sorry to bring back an earlier completed thread.
The question was presented:-
In a 2-dimensional lattice random walk with balanced probabilities,
i.e. four of 1/4 each, starting at <0,0>; what is the probabil;ity
that it gets to <0,1> before returning to <0,0> ?
The answer was given as exactly 1/2, and my crude numerical estimations
seem to bear this out. At the time, I think a full proof was given,
but it seemed a rather long one, and it struck me that for such a simple
result, there ought to be a simple proof. But I never found one.
So, can anyone find a quick proof of the result?
Or failing that, can anyone recall the earlier longish proof?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you paid your random road tax recently?
If not - then visit your local speed camera!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================
From: - (jazze...@coolmail.com)
Subject: Re: Random Walk result request.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 2003-09-03 08:22:04 PST
w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote:
> In a 2-dimensional lattice random walk with balanced probabilities,
> i.e. four of 1/4 each, starting at <0,0>; what is the probabil;ity
> that it gets to <0,1> before returning to <0,0> ?
>
> The answer was given as exactly 1/2, and my crude numerical estimations
> seem to bear this out. At the time, I think a full proof was given,
> but it seemed a rather long one, and it struck me that for such a simple
> result, there ought to be a simple proof. But I never found one.
>
> So, can anyone find a quick proof of the result?
>
> Or failing that, can anyone recall the earlier longish proof?
Starting from infinity, the result seems quite reasonable.
However, from locality there is a parity requirement that hitting
<0,0> or <0,1> (or <0,i>, <0,-1>, <0,-i>) is equiprobable, since
there are an equal number of even-walks and odd-walks when
the "origin" is augmented to include its four immediate neighbors.
- regards
- jb
==========================================================
From: Kevin Buhr (bu...@telus.net)
Subject: Re: Random Walk result request.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 2003-09-07 22:37:29 PST
w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) writes:
>
> In a 2-dimensional lattice random walk with balanced probabilities,
> i.e. four of 1/4 each, starting at <0,0>; what is the probabil;ity
> that it gets to <0,1> before returning to <0,0> ?
>
> The answer was given as exactly 1/2, and my crude numerical estimations
> seem to bear this out. At the time, I think a full proof was given,
> but it seemed a rather long one, and it struck me that for such a simple
> result, there ought to be a simple proof. But I never found one.
>
> So, can anyone find a quick proof of the result?
Oh, that's easy! One moment...
[ several hours and a few dozen wasted sheets of paper later ]
Well, okay, maybe it's not so easy, but sometimes the key to doing
good mathematics is knowing which good mathematician to ask for help.
I was fortunate enough to mention your problem to Vlada Limic, a UBC
probabilist, just as she was heading home after a particularly
exhausting day. Well, I guess she solved it halfway to the bus stop,
because the next day the following (effectively three-line) proof was
on my desk.
Let p be the probability, starting at <0,0> that we return to <0,0>
before hitting <1,0>. Of course, the number of times we hit <1,0>
before returning to <0,0> is one less than a Geom(p) random variable.
Therefore, it has expectation:
E (# of hits of <1,0> before return to <0,0>) = 1/p - 1
On the other hand, consider the number of visits Y we make to *any* of
<0,0>'s neighbours before finally returning to <0,0>. On our first
step from the origin, we make one visit (to whichever neighbour we
land on). If we successfully go right back (with probability 1/4),
then Y=1. Otherwise, we fail (probability 3/4) to go right back, make
an excursion of some duration, and eventually return to one of <0,0>'s
neighbours. Once again, we either succeed in returning to the origin
(with probability 1/4), so Y=2, or we fail (with probability 3/4), and
so on.
Thus, Y is really the number of trials up to and including the first
successful return to the origin where trials are independent with
probability of success 1/4. So, Y is a Geom(1/4) random variable, and
its expectation is 4. That is:
E (# of hits of <1,0>, <0,1>, <-1,0>, or <0,-1> before
return to <0,0>) = 4
But this expectation is equal to the sum of the expected number of
hits to each of these four neighbours before return to <0,0>. By
symmetry, they each have the expectation 1/p - 1 calculated above, so:
4 = 4 * (1/p - 1)
and p=1/2, as required.
P.S., If anyone's seen this neat little proof elsewhere, please let
us know.
--
Kevin <bu...@telus.net>
==========================================================
From: Don Coppersmith (dco...@us.ibm.com)
Subject: Re: Random Walk result request.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 2003-09-08 07:01:57 PST
w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote:
> In a 2-dimensional lattice random walk with balanced probabilities,
> i.e. four of 1/4 each, starting at <0,0>; what is the probability
> that it gets to <0,1> before returning to <0,0> ?
>
> The answer was given as exactly 1/2, and my crude numerical estimations
> seem to bear this out. At the time, I think a full proof was given,
> but it seemed a rather long one, and it struck me that for such a simple
> result, there ought to be a simple proof. But I never found one.
>
> So, can anyone find a quick proof of the result?
>
> Or failing that, can anyone recall the earlier longish proof?
Here's a quick justification that relies on physical intuition.
Let f(x,y) be a "point response":
f(0,0)=1,
[limit (x or y -> infinity or -infinity) f(x,y)]=0,
f(x,y)=(1/4)[f(x+1,y)+f(x-1,y)+f(x,y+1)+f(x,y-1)] if (x,y) is not (0,0).
f enjoys symmetry: f(x,y)=f(y,x)=f(-x,y)=...
Define g(x,y)=(1/2)+b*[f(x,y)-f(x,y-1)]
where b is chosen to make g(0,0)=1.
By symmetry we will have g(0,1)=0.
g satisfies the difference equation except at (0,0) and (0,1).
g(x,y) is the probability that starting from (x,y), the
first visit to (0,0) precedes the first visit to (0,1),
counting the starting point as a first visit. (g has the
right boundary conditions and right difference equation.)
But we are not counting the starting point as a first visit.
So the probability that, starting from (0,0) and not
counting the starting point, we revisit (0,0) before (0,1)
is P=(1/4)(g(0,1)+g(0,-1)+g(1,0)+g(-1,0)).
P=(1/2)+(b/4)*[f(0,1)-f(0,0)+f(0,-1)-f(0,-2)+
+f(1,0)-f(1,-1)+f(-1,0)-f(-1,-1)]
Substituting f(0,0)+f(0,-2)+f(1,-1)+f(-1,-1)=4f(0,-1),
(from the difference equation), we get
P=(1/2)+(b/4)*[f(0,1)-3f(0,-1)+f(1,0)+f(-1,0)]
But symmetry of f gives f(0,1)=f(0,-1)=f(1,0)=f(-1,0)
so the bracketed expression is 0 and p=1/2.
Don Coppersmith
==========================================================
Richard Lancashire
Good for you. But do you have any evidence that he's insulted anybody
on RGG - this was the matter Mr. Gruen raised.
Some people are plainly not above throwing insults:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bf15rg%24o9v%241%40yggdrasil.utfors.se&output=gplain
Mud-slinging is a good way for the dirty to bring everyone else down
to their own low level of hygiene. Perhaps the email should stay in
your records, permission or no?
Cheers
Rich
Tweedie
>Good for you. But do you have any evidence that he's insulted anybody
>on RGG - this was the matter Mr. Gruen raised.
I have email stating that Mr. Shubert reproved them for statements
they made in r.g.g. This is a matter I raised before.
>Some people are plainly not above throwing insults:
Correct, Mr. Shubert is not above throwing insults.
>Mud-slinging is a good way for the dirty to bring everyone else down
>to their own low level of hygiene.
This is why kgs was not considered for something major recently;
the kgs advocates were a great help.
>Perhaps the email should stay in your records, permission or no?
Irrelevant
Cheers
tweet
Chris Lawrence
> This is why kgs was not considered for something major recently;
Out of interest what is this major event and where is it detailed? So
far there has been a lot of noise but no actual data. I'm interested to
know what's coming up on IGS.
--
Chris
Marco Scheurer
>
> Garbage. I know many people living in Japan who are aware of how
> corrupt and incompetent the Japanese government ("government by and
> for rent seekers") is.
>
OT, of course, but corruption in Japan does not appear to be that bad:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2002/cpi2002.en.html
"I know many people living in X who are aware of how corrupt and
incompetent the X government is." For what X this does not apply? Duh.
Marco Scheurer
Lausanne, Switzerland.
robert
> I have email stating that Mr. Shubert reproved them for statements
> they made in r.g.g. This is a matter I raised before.
> the kgs advocates were a great help.
> tweet
Jezus, what do you have against Mr. Shubert?!? Did he kill your wife?
Did he run over your daughter? Or are you really the fearless leader
your friend Big Duck describes? Is it just because he has a server
too? Go and cry in the arms of Boscole if you want attention.
You, compared to Mr. Shubert - as far as we can judge from the posts
on this NG - are as excrement as compared to cream. Now you know how a
lot of us feel (sigh, no Boscole, I cannot profide you with a 2000
lines long list containing the names and the definition of "us" and
"excrement"...)
Wake up! There are another popular servers in this world. What are you
going to do? Is bitching on this NG going to make IGS more popular?
Leave this group alone for a few weeks and do some pr work, that might
be a better option.
my best regards :-)
robert
>>> "My motto is: "Let truth be your authority and
>>> not authority be your truth." " (Jeff Boscole)
Richard Lancashire
>
> >Good for you. But do you have any evidence that he's insulted anybody
> >on RGG - this was the matter Mr. Gruen raised.
>
> I have email stating that Mr. Shubert reproved them for statements
> they made in r.g.g. This is a matter I raised before.
Irrelevant.
> >Some people are plainly not above throwing insults:
>
> Correct, Mr. Shubert is not above throwing insults.
Nor are you (in case you missed the link, it's
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bf15rg%24o9v%241%40yggdrasil.utfors.se&output=gplain
- "some people" refers not in this case to Mr. Shubert, but to
yourself); you cannot castigate him for that without being
hypocritical.
Besides, Mr. Shubert has the defence - should your email allegation
prove true - that he apparently keeps any insulting he does a personal
matter, rather than on public boards. Whatever friends of yours may
complain to you about by email is surely personal business between
them and Mr. Shubert.
> >Perhaps the email should stay in your records, permission or no?
>
> Irrelevant
It was a suggestion pertaining to the email, not an argument or
statement.
Cheers
Rich
Michael Alford
(header removed again)
>The way that I see it is that it may be exaggerated (perhaps), but there is a
>certain plausbility about it. If it were implausible, then there would be no
>need for the vigorous denials. It is a very hard battle indeed for IGS.
>The trouble, as I see it, is that there is the battle for market share and
>the battle for the hearts and minds. The two should be complementary, if
>they are opposed, both will fail. Winning hearts and minds includes being nice
>to Big Duck and his confederates. A tough one I'd say !
Good point. Unfortunately, it has been tried, and it was, at best, a dismal
disappointment. Several attempts have been made to, if not befriend, at least
establish a noncombative dialogue with several of "his confederates". Ignoring
them hasn't worked, olive branches haven't worked, and while outshouting them
is not a problem, it is also not a solution. So, a tack with a little more
tact.
Michael
Michael Alford
rver...@hotmail.com (robert) wrote:
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) writes:
Besides, Mr. Shubert has the defence - should your email allegation
prove true - that he apparently keeps any insulting he does a personal
matter, rather than on public boards. Whatever friends of yours may
complain to you about by email is surely personal business between
them and Mr. Shubert.
Thank you, robert, for providing the group with an excellent example of just
what a blatherskite is. Well done.
The email in question is mine, sent to tweet on the occasion of a very public
incident between myself and Mr. Shubert one night at Go club in the Anne
Hughes Coffee Room at Powell's Books in Portland, OR. Mr. Shubert and I had
known each other for some time when this incident occured. We met when Bob
O'Malley and I held the first Oregon Open, I had written "malf on IGS" under
my name on my tournament director ID badge. This incident occured August of
last year. It is the timing that I don't understand:
Mr. Shubert and I were seated side-by-side at Go club. He was playing a game
with a newbie that I had given some lessons to earlier in the evening. While
listening to the newbie's patter, I suddenly realized he was ThinkIt (yes,
that one) and I said as much. He admitted it, and several other players that
read rgg ragged on him for a couple minutes about being ThinkIt, all in good
fun, rather quite friendly. Then, he asked me who I was on rgg, saying it was
only fair that he should know. I told him, "I am malf", and Shubert went
ballistic, "Oh! The person in the world I hate the most!", followed by a long,
disjointed diatribe about NNGS, his friends, Teri Shurter, lawsuits, just a
total emotional dump. Entirely for what I'd posted to rgg. He'd never before
said a word about it to me, public or private, even though he'd had chances.
This was in front of at least 100 people, he attracted the attention of
everyone in the coffee room. Needless to say, I was somewhat shocked,
embarassed, and insulted. Since I am rather twice the size of Mr. Shubert, I
just sat there and took it for a while, not wanting to cause an even bigger
scene. I brought it to a stop when he gave me a chance to interject about the
Shurter woman. He calmed down, and changed the subject. After his tirade,
everyone returned to their games, and later, there was some group discussion
about NNGS, IGS, KGS, the necessity of putting up web pages, client
considerations, rating complaints, the availability of time to him after the
birth of his child, general stuff connected with running a Go server. At one
point in this discussion, Mr. Shubert made certain statements about the
relations he had with certain people. I was nonplussed, my thoughts were, "He
can't really be living in that much of a fantasy world." So, in order to help
straighten out my own thinking on the matter, I composed and sent an email to
tweet, just as a matter of idle curiosity, I never expected it to come up here
on rgg. This incident was over a year ago, and I still don't understand the
timing.
What do I have against Mr. Shubert? Very little, actually. All I hold against
him is his entanglement with the NNGS crowd. I do not associate NNGS with KGS,
KGS being "sufficiently different". Mr. Shubert is not posting misinformation
about IGS, lies about IGS, or engaging in seemingly planned slander of IGS,
unlike some others that will remain nameless. As for "excrement as compared to
cream", while I might be persuaded that the analogy is valid, I would demur as
to its application. tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly
respected. Mr Shubert's reputation suffers somewhat on that stage because of
his involvement with the NNGS plagiarizers and associates. Perhaps "robert"
simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding his
anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
Michael
schac...@gmx.de
I just skimmed through an old German go book from the first half
of the 20th century. Back then the players had
only a few books of rather mediocre quality available and it was tough
to find
opponents to play with - not to speak of skilled opponents -
if you did not live in a
large city like Berlin. Undaunted the enthusiasts played
correspondence go and traveled under adverse conditions to enjoy a
good go game.
Today we really have it made. There is a sizeable go literature
for western readers available (in English) and even if you live in a
small village, you just log on to a wonderful go server like IGS
(or another go server of your choice) and you can play against
opponents of
any strength at the click of a mouse.
There also exists an international news group about go and the
aspiring go
player comes here expecting to see advanced and intricate
discussions about go tactics and strategy. Instead he will find
these unbelievable kindergarten-rantings currently going on here
and will shake his (or her) head in disbelief. Worse, if one
searches the history of the group, it quickly becomes obvious that the
same
issues have been brought up again and again by the very same people
since years.
I am an IT-professional and I am certainly sympathetic with admins
having
to deal with irriating users, which are a small minority, but which do
exist.
Go is a game of strategy which also requires considerable tactical
skills. A
kiebitz usually (thinks he) knows better how to play than the persons
on
the board. This kiebitz when reviewing some of the ramblings can only
wonder
what strategy and tactics the adversaries in this shouting match have
in mind.
Clearly those whose objective is to create chaos are winning by a wide
margin.
If I were an IGS admin - and it goes without saying an admin who would
to the
job as good and fair as possible - I would probably calmly explain to
the group
my point of view but never ever enter a shouting match or exchange of
insults
with anyone. One can only loose. It is just a matter of being
internet-smart.
May be it is time to read "attack and defense" and "strategic concepts
of go"
again.
Cheers
Schachstein
William Shubert
For example, as I know it, the Anne Hughes coffee room (where we met)
had more like 20 or 30 people in it, of whom 5 to 10 probably
overheard me. In addition, I'm pretty sure that I didn't call him "the
person I hate most in the world", instead it was "the person I hate
most on rec.games.go". I suppose Mr. Alford was surprised because I
had never challenged him here, so he thought I had somehow not been
offended by what he had been saying. I hadn't brought up his messages
here because his posts had led me to guess that he enjoyed making
people angry, and I didn't want to encourage him. When I actually met
the person who had spread so much hate, lies, and vehemence towards
those whom I knew were good people, my temper got the better of me,
and I told him exactly what I thought of him and his poison pen
newsgroup posts.
So Tweet was right. I do indeed sometimes carry a grudge against
people for what they post in rec.games.go. I feel fine with that - in
my opinion, I'd be crazy not to carry a grudge against as hateful,
spiteful, and malicious a person as Mr. Alford. And if we meet in
person again, I'll be happy to tell him so again, even if he is "twice
as big as me" as he says. All my life I have been smaller than most
people around me, but never in my life have I been afraid to stand up
to a bully, and I'm not going to start being afraid now.
ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote in message news:<bjlhv...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
Richard Lancashire
> rver...@hotmail.com (robert) wrote:
> Besides, Mr. Shubert has the defence - should your email allegation
> prove true - that he apparently keeps any insulting he does a personal
> matter, rather than on public boards. Whatever friends of yours may
> complain to you about by email is surely personal business between
> them and Mr. Shubert.
>
> The email in question is mine, sent to tweet on the occasion of a very public
> incident between myself and Mr. Shubert one night at Go club in the Anne
> Hughes Coffee Room at Powell's Books in Portland, OR.
It's a very interesting story, but note again it is an IGS
representative who drags it all to RGG. As I said, it is personal
business, however unpleasant, and as such of little more interest than
idle gossip. If you have personal issues with Mr. Shubert, why not
resolve them personally and make some sort of peace if you can?
See, when IGS gets in any way mentioned less than positively, some
people go straight on the attack, because what's said in rgg affects
the perception of IGS outside of this place, and so on; regrettable,
but generally understandable. So why be surprised when it comes back
in your face?
> Mr. Shubert made certain statements about the
> relations he had with certain people. I was nonplussed, my thoughts were, "He
> can't really be living in that much of a fantasy world."
Did you bring this up with him at the time, or since, or decide to
drag it into RGG?
The point still stands; many of the people you named in your original
post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost IGS
representatives.
> So, in order to help
> straighten out my own thinking on the matter, I composed and sent an email to
> tweet, just as a matter of idle curiosity, I never expected it to come up here
> on rgg.
It would appear that some people (for clarity, tweet and jb
specifically) will store and use any electronically-stored information
as ammunition for a discussion.
> tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly respected.
Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
represents.
For the record, I have accounts on both IGS and KGS, and respect them
both greatly for the service they offer in helping spread and improve
go.
> Perhaps "robert"
> simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding his
> anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
nonetheless.
Regards
Rich
Michael Alford
>
>ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote
>> rver...@hotmail.com (robert) wrote:
>
>> Besides, Mr. Shubert has the defence - should your email allegation
>> prove true - that he apparently keeps any insulting he does a
> personal
>> matter, rather than on public boards. Whatever friends of yours may
>> complain to you about by email is surely personal business between
>> them and Mr. Shubert.
>>
>> The email in question is mine, sent to tweet on the occasion of a very public
>
>> incident between myself and Mr. Shubert one night at Go club in the Anne
>> Hughes Coffee Room at Powell's Books in Portland, OR.
>
>It's a very interesting story, but note again it is an IGS
>representative who drags it all to RGG. As I said, it is personal
>business, however unpleasant, and as such of little more interest than
>idle gossip. If you have personal issues with Mr. Shubert, why not
>resolve them personally and make some sort of peace if you can?
I do not see it as a personal issue. Mr. Shubert's actions with NNGS, his
creation of KGS, and his posting to rgg affect all of us. Also, I am not an
IGS representative, I'm just a satisfied user that finds most of the IGS
slander posted here unwarranted. And, Mr. Shubert's reply to my post would
indicate that "peace" is not forthcoming.
>
>See, when IGS gets in any way mentioned less than positively, some
>people go straight on the attack, because what's said in rgg affects
>the perception of IGS outside of this place, and so on; regrettable,
>but generally understandable. So why be surprised when it comes back
>in your face?
>
>> Mr. Shubert made certain statements about the
>> relations he had with certain people. I was nonplussed, my thoughts were, "He
>
>> can't really be living in that much of a fantasy world."
>
>Did you bring this up with him at the time, or since, or decide to
>drag it into RGG?
Trying to talk to Mr. Shubert about it would seem an exercise in futility, at
this point, and it was not my decision that got this drug into rgg.
>
>The point still stands; many of the people you named in your original
>post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost IGS
>representatives.
This is obviously in jest. (Mr. Lancashire refers to the Blatherskite thread)
>
>> So, in order to help
>> straighten out my own thinking on the matter, I composed and sent an email to
>
>> tweet, just as a matter of idle curiosity, I never expected it to come up
> here
>> on rgg.
>
>It would appear that some people (for clarity, tweet and jb
>specifically) will store and use any electronically-stored information
>as ammunition for a discussion.
This may be, I don't really know. I have a folder for rgg, but it doesn't have
many entries, even after more than a decade of reading the group, not much
happens here worth keeping. For the record, the IGS slanderers have done
exactly what you say tweet and jb appear to do. This has been remarked on time
and time again, by people other than tweet and jb.
>> tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly respected.
>
>Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
>represents.
I do not have the temerity to speak for the entire news group. You probably
meant to say "a minor portion of the group". From the email I get, and other
messages I receive, I would venture that tweet's reputation amongst most rgg
readers is fine.
>For the record, I have accounts on both IGS and KGS, and respect them
>both greatly for the service they offer in helping spread and improve
>go.
No argument here at all, I agree 100%.
>> Perhaps "robert"
>> simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding his
>> anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
>> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
>
>Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
>valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
>refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
>nonetheless.
You want me to just come out and say "has his head up his ass"? And comparing
tweet to excrement is not an insult?
>Regards
>Rich
Michael
Patrick Bridges
> In article <8ad6f59.03091...@posting.google.com>, rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>
> I do not see it as a personal issue. Mr. Shubert's actions with NNGS, his
> creation of KGS, and his posting to rgg affect all of us. Also, I am not an
> IGS representative, I'm just a satisfied user that finds most of the IGS
> slander posted here unwarranted. And, Mr. Shubert's reply to my post would
> indicate that "peace" is not forthcoming.
Well, in your "sign-off message", you admitted to using this newsgroup
to shill for IGS, troll, and flame others, and in another message that
you intentioally insulted wms by implication several times. Why are
you then surprised that people actually form an opinion of you based
on your behavior here? Do you think that you shouldn't be held
responsible for or judged based upon the insults you sling in public
on this newsgroup?
Daniel Gao
You've done what I want to do to for years after reading this scum's
venomous posts.
Daniel
w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote in message news:<670194dc.03090...@posting.google.com>...
-
rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
> The point still stands; many of the people you named in your
> original post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost
> IGS representatives.
Other than Tweet, IGS does not maintain "representatives" on RGG.
Simply put, "malf" is a player volunteering to pick up some pieces.
> It would appear that some people (for clarity, tweet and jb
> specifically) will store and use any electronically-stored information
> as ammunition for a discussion.
So grow up and welcome to the information age in cyberspace.
>> tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly respected.
> Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server
> he represents.
And since the group is populated by malcontents, your
survey methods were questionable, even disreputable.
>> Perhaps "robert" simply has his head in an inappropriately
>> juxtaposed position regarding his anatomy to be able to discern
>> that this insulting and posting thereof is a
>> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
> Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
> valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
> refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
> nonetheless.
I must have lost a few usages of "perhaps" there, in the shuffle.
Shall we start again, this time spelling out issues in stark relief?
- regards
- jb
ian
> <snip previous>
>
> I do not see it as a personal issue. Mr. Shubert's actions with NNGS, his
> creation of KGS, and his posting to rgg affect all of us. Also, I am not an
> IGS representative, I'm just a satisfied user that finds most of the IGS
> slander posted here unwarranted. And, Mr. Shubert's reply to my post would
> indicate that "peace" is not forthcoming.
>
comforting that you were embarrassed when he found out that he was
sitting beside one of the leading trolls of rgg - but depressing that
you have not changed your ways.
> >
> >See, when IGS gets in any way mentioned less than positively, some
> >people go straight on the attack, because what's said in rgg affects
> >the perception of IGS outside of this place, and so on; regrettable,
> >but generally understandable. So why be surprised when it comes back
> >in your face?
> >
> >> Mr. Shubert made certain statements about the
> >> relations he had with certain people. I was nonplussed, my thoughts were, "He
>
> >> can't really be living in that much of a fantasy world."
> >
> >Did you bring this up with him at the time, or since, or decide to
> >drag it into RGG?
>
> Trying to talk to Mr. Shubert about it would seem an exercise in futility, at
> this point, and it was not my decision that got this drug into rgg.
>
And yes a drug it is. You just can't seem to stop what are quite
clearly personal attacks on individuals. What this thread actually had
to do with go is beyond me. Do we really need to start a
rec.games.go.flameeachother group?
> >
> >The point still stands; many of the people you named in your original
> >post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost IGS
> >representatives.
> This is obviously in jest. (Mr. Lancashire refers to the Blatherskite thread)
No he refers to you.
>
> >
> >> So, in order to help
> >> straighten out my own thinking on the matter, I composed and sent an email to
> >> tweet, just as a matter of idle curiosity, I never expected it to come up
> here
> >> on rgg.
How can you compose an email as a matter of idle curiosty? You could
at least try to come up with a credible reason.
> >
> >It would appear that some people (for clarity, tweet and jb
> >specifically) will store and use any electronically-stored information
> >as ammunition for a discussion.
>
> This may be, I don't really know. I have a folder for rgg, but it doesn't have
> many entries, even after more than a decade of reading the group, not much
> happens here worth keeping. For the record, the IGS slanderers have done
> exactly what you say tweet and jb appear to do. This has been remarked on time
> and time again, by people other than tweet and jb.
>
Okay so its tweet, jb and malf then...
> >> tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly respected.
> >
> >Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
> >represents.
>
> I do not have the temerity to speak for the entire news group. You probably
> meant to say "a minor portion of the group". From the email I get, and other
> messages I receive, I would venture that tweet's reputation amongst most rgg
> readers is fine.
>
Do we have to conduct a poll?
> >For the record, I have accounts on both IGS and KGS, and respect them
> >both greatly for the service they offer in helping spread and improve
> >go.
>
> No argument here at all, I agree 100%.
>
> >> Perhaps "robert"
> >> simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding his
> >> anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
> >> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
> >
> >Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
> >valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
> >refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
> >nonetheless.
>
> You want me to just come out and say "has his head up his ass"?
Why not? You have no problem with posting out of yours?
>And comparing tweet to excrement is not an insult?
Depends which is being insulted.
>
Two threads devoted to abuse is enough for me. You're killfiled now.
Andrew Walkingshaw
> Do we really need to start a rec.games.go.flameeachother group?
>
I read this as rec.games.go.flamethrower.
It'd be an interesting variant, though I think the people with expensive
kaya boards might want to opt out for now...
- Andrew
--
Andrew Walkingshaw | andrew...@lexical.org.uk
Richard Lancashire
> Also, I am not an
> IGS representative, I'm just a satisfied user that finds most of the IGS
> slander posted here unwarranted. And, Mr. Shubert's reply to my post would
> indicate that "peace" is not forthcoming.
I apologise for taking you as a representative, and your final point
must be conceded.
> >Did you bring this up with him at the time, or since, or decide to
> >drag it into RGG?
>
> Trying to talk to Mr. Shubert about it would seem an exercise in futility, at
> this point, and it was not my decision that got this drug into rgg.
At this point, maybe. The question stands. And it was Tweet's
decision, but he explicitly stated he had your permission to do so.
> >The point still stands; many of the people you named in your original
> >post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost IGS
> >representatives.
>
> This is obviously in jest. (Mr. Lancashire refers to the Blatherskite thread)
No, Mr. Alford, it is not.
> >Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
> >represents.
>
> I do not have the temerity to speak for the entire news group. You probably
> meant to say "a minor portion of the group". From the email I get, and other
> messages I receive, I would venture that tweet's reputation amongst most rgg
> readers is fine.
I am sure that I don't need you to tell me what I meant to say, given
your abilities at discerning when I'm jesting. Of course, I'm not
privy to this secret support that you get from most RGG readers, but
they seem to be keeping their silence admirably in public. I'm sure
you'll receive many dozens of emails from them explaining why this
should be so.
> >> Perhaps "robert"
> >> simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding his
> >> anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
> >> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
> >
> >Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
> >valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
> >refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
> >nonetheless.
>
> You want me to just come out and say "has his head up his ass"?
Curtail your insulting, not your insult. That is, cease to do so,
rather than stop halfway. But, let's face it, it would make a
refreshing change from the intellectually smug sniping and gutless
allusion usually batted around this group, wouldn't it? :)
> And comparing tweet to excrement is not an insult?
It most certainly is. Perhaps Tweet is a big enough birdie to answer
his own insults?
Cheers
Rich
Erik van der Werf
rec.games.go.analysis
rec.games.go.computer
rec.games.go.misc
rec.games.go.politics
rec.games.go.rules
rec.games.go.servers
Grtx,
Erik
Andrew Walkingshaw
> How about:
>
> rec.games.go.analysis
> rec.games.go.computer
> rec.games.go.misc
> rec.games.go.politics
> rec.games.go.rules
> rec.games.go.servers
>
> Grtx,
> Erik
rgg is dead. There isn't enough go content to support one group, let
alone six - you'd never get enough votes to fulfill the rec.* group
creation requirements.
Any serious go talk seems to happen on the (pleasantly troll-free)
Senseis' Library these days.
- Andrew
Michael Alford
>
>ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote
>> In article <8ad6f59.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> rlanc...@hotmail.com (Richard Lancashire) wrote:
>
>> Also, I am not an
>> IGS representative, I'm just a satisfied user that finds most of the IGS
>> slander posted here unwarranted. And, Mr. Shubert's reply to my post would
>> indicate that "peace" is not forthcoming.
>
>I apologise for taking you as a representative, and your final point
>must be conceded.
Thank you. Yes, sadly...
>> >Did you bring this up with him at the time, or since, or decide to
>> >drag it into RGG?
>>
>> Trying to talk to Mr. Shubert about it would seem an exercise in futility, at
>
>> this point, and it was not my decision that got this drug into rgg.
>
>At this point, maybe. The question stands. And it was Tweet's
>decision, but he explicitly stated he had your permission to do so.
Yes, tweet asked for my permission to post the email. This was after several
posts to this group about insults by others. I was reluctant to grant it,
because I knew that this present situation would come about. However, I did,
trusting tweet's judgment on how and when to post it. Then, it was pointed out
to me that even if tweet posted it anonymously, the hue and cry here on rgg
would demand that I step forward anyway, so I posted the story.
>> >The point still stands; many of the people you named in your original
>> >post are far better behaved in RGG than the foremost IGS
>> >representatives.
>>
>> This is obviously in jest. (Mr. Lancashire refers to the Blatherskite thread)
>
>No, Mr. Alford, it is not.
Then you haven't been reading rgg closely, or for a longer period of time. I
see no need to provide a list of all the inane, thoughtless, unsupportable
garbage posted here by the people on that list, it's all in the archives.
>> >Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
>> >represents.
>>
>> I do not have the temerity to speak for the entire news group. You probably
>> meant to say "a minor portion of the group". From the email I get, and other
>> messages I receive, I would venture that tweet's reputation amongst most rgg
>> readers is fine.
>
>I am sure that I don't need you to tell me what I meant to say, given
>your abilities at discerning when I'm jesting. Of course, I'm not
>privy to this secret support that you get from most RGG readers, but
>they seem to be keeping their silence admirably in public. I'm sure
>you'll receive many dozens of emails from them explaining why this
>should be so.
Sarcasm, Mr. Lancashire? :) There are many people who read this group but do
not post to it for various reasons, I'm sure you could provide your own list
of these with a little thought. I do not receive "many dozens" of emails in
support of my posts, but I will say that for every email from someone like
Locher deriding what I do here, I probably get three in support. My posting
here is a lot more popular than some here would have you believe. Do you
honestly believe that if the only response I got to my efforts was the abuse
heaped upon me in this group that I would continue? Give me a break.
>> >> Perhaps "robert"
>> >> simply has his head in an inappropriately juxtaposed position regarding
> his
>> >> anatomy to be able to discern that this insulting and posting thereof is a
>
>> >> double-edged sword. (glass houses, bricks...)
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should curtail your insulting, lest it cost IGS some
>> >valuable future contract. And please, resist the temptation to take
>> >refuge behind your "perhaps" preface; implied intent is intent
>> >nonetheless.
>>
>> You want me to just come out and say "has his head up his ass"?
>
>Curtail your insulting, not your insult. That is, cease to do so,
>rather than stop halfway. But, let's face it, it would make a
>refreshing change from the intellectually smug sniping and gutless
>allusion usually batted around this group, wouldn't it? :)
You mean everyone should just come and say what they really think? My God,
Man, are you trying to start "The Mother of All Flame Wars?" :) Your point is
well taken though, it would be refreshing (after all, this has been going on
since 1995). Also, allow me to point out that since I've returned from my
short hiatus, I have not responded to certain people, nor will I. And the
style and content are different. The nature of the game has changed.
>> And comparing tweet to excrement is not an insult?
>
>It most certainly is. Perhaps Tweet is a big enough birdie to answer
>his own insults?
tweet is a big enough birdie not to stoop to it.
>Cheers
>Rich
Michael
Robert Jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> rgg is dead.
This is the worst flame I have seen here since I started reading
in 1995.
RGG is alive!
> There isn't enough go content to support one group,
Only scarcely since 1995 there has been as much go content (if we
do not count flame threads) as today. Apparently you read this
group too little for a serious judgement.
> let
> alone six - you'd never get enough votes to fulfill the rec.* group
> creation requirements.
If a poll is not tried, we will not know whether this is right.
> Any serious go talk seems to happen on the (pleasantly troll-free)
> Senseis' Library these days.
One should not compare two fundamentally different technologies.
If you insist nevertheless, FWIW, it depends on what you call
"serious go talk"! IME, the serious contents there is of lower
quality than the serious contents here.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
Erik van der Werf wrote:
> How about:
>
> rec.games.go.analysis
> rec.games.go.computer
> rec.games.go.misc
> rec.games.go.politics
> rec.games.go.rules
> rec.games.go.servers
One can imagine different structures. Once you declare for sure
that you want to launch the formal process, we can discuss the
structure. Otherwise discussing details like the structure is
mostly wasted time.
--
robert jasiek
Bill Spight
> How about:
>
> rec.games.go.analysis
> rec.games.go.computer
> rec.games.go.misc
> rec.games.go.politics
> rec.games.go.rules
> rec.games.go.servers
>
How about rec.games.go.bs?
Unfortunately, the BS'ers would not write to it. <sigh>
> Grtx,
> Erik
>
And the Great State of Texas to you, too. ;-)
Bill
Andrew Walkingshaw
>
>
> Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
>> rgg is dead.
>
> This is the worst flame I have seen here since I started reading
> in 1995.
>
> RGG is alive!
Rules threads (of great interest to rules experts and no-one else),
and server wars; apart from Charles' recent post, no other interesting
go content in well over a month.
That's fairly dead, as far as I can tell, for anyone who doesn't have an
interest in the above two meta-topics. I have no interest at all in
rules flamewars or server flamewars, so the group has almost nothing of
significant *go* interest - positions, analysis, discussion of games,
etcetera.
The rules content may be of very great interest to you, but that's not
Go, as commonly understood; it's something else halfway between pure
logic and legal theory.
- Andrew
Charles Matthews
> Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> > rgg is dead.
>
> This is the worst flame I have seen here since I started reading
> in 1995.
>
> RGG is alive!
>
<snip>
> > Any serious go talk seems to happen on the (pleasantly troll-free)
> > Senseis' Library these days.
>
> One should not compare two fundamentally different technologies.
> If you insist nevertheless, FWIW, it depends on what you call
> "serious go talk"! IME, the serious contents there is of lower
> quality than the serious contents here.
I don't think either Robert or Andrew is being entirely fair here.
If for the purposes of argument (yes, yes, pun intended) rgg were divided
into RGG.announce and RGG.question, both parts would be worthwhile even as
things stand.
As for SL, Robert takes an odd line, if we are speaking of average quality
given some cut-off. Anyway SL does extremely well as a kind of hyper-FAQ
for RGG, and go in general (cf. the BQM series of pages, for example). I
feel the debates there on, for example, haengma and thickness have given me
confidence that the real issues have been exposed to view. There are some
weaknesses - for all the CGT material there, the theory hasn't yet gelled as
a treatment, in my opinion. The wiki mode of development therefore seems to
have a few limitations.
Charles
Big Duck
You are the man. You have done great things for go and for all players that
play go! You have singlehandedly thrown the first bomb in the new war
declared on KGS! congratulations for you excellent scribing skills. Tweet
is very fortunate to have someone like you to support his efforts.
You deserve a great reward. I think that tweet should give you a blanket
lifetime IGS connection for what you have accomplished
Let me also comment you on some of your great arguing tactics. I especially
like your statement
> but I will say that for every email from someone like
> Locher deriding what I do here, I probably get three in support
This is brilliant malf! My only comment here is that I would have picked a
number a little higher than 3. Perhaps 7 or 10 would be better. The
readers here will not realize that 3X0 = 0 and that 7X0 = 0 and that 10X 0 =
0. You have used great skill here malf!
Furthermore, I like the way that IGS has convinced the world that Shubert
is the new enemy. While some people here may wonder "why go after Shubert
after IGS has said for 7 years that they only are bothered by NNGS stealing
their code, and stealing only"
Well we know the rules have changed now. Who would have thought that the
ingrates would actually muster up enough energy and intelligence to put
together a new server that is actually original?
So you have done well! We can now direct everyone here on rgg to go after
Shubert because he blows up at go meetings. We also knows that he takes his
client code and sticks it in a cylinder and pushes it up his anus every
single night. This kind of makes him a pervert too! This really
disqualifies him from being a go server leader.
Congrats on taking down NNGS! You did indeed have a reason to retire from
rgg after having accomplished your goal.
Who would have ever thought that after taking down NNGS a new, and improved,
enemy would emerge!
Be ever viligint! Long live tweet! Long live IGS!
Your friend as we labor together ,
Big Duck!
PS I hate slow turtle and Wily Mr. Skunk too!
"Michael Alford" <ma...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:bjndm...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Bantari
says...
> >> tweet is highly respected internationally, quite highly respected.
Well... I guess that is probably because the international
community in question, if it reads RGG at all, is smart enough to have
kill-filed people like JB long time ago. Lol.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that the RGG readership is also
part of the "international" community. Yes? :)
But joking aside. What Richard said below is not that Tweet is
disrespected on RGG (although maybe he meant to say it), just that he is
*less* well-respected than IGS. That does not preclude the fact that he
is still respected. It means that the server itself is respected even
more.
Words. Semantics. Want to argue them? Or do you rather assign
arbitrary meaning to what people say? If so, try being less negative,
ok? :)
> >
> >Regrettably, less well-respected on this group than the go server he
> >represents.
>
> I do not have the temerity to speak for the entire news group. You probably
> meant to say "a minor portion of the group".
Why not "a major portion of the group"?? How do you know that the
portion he speaks for is minor? An assumption? A rather bad one, I
think.
Or is that just another well-chosen twist of a phrase to discredit
somebody's opinion? Favorite trick? Semantics again? Lol.
Sigh...
> From the email I get, and other
> messages I receive, I would venture that tweet's reputation amongst most rgg
> readers is fine.
No disrespect here, but let me respond to this with your own
words: You "can't really be living in that much of a fantasy world."
Can you?
The really sad thing is that this reputation is largely (but not
exclusively) due to posts of people like you ands jb - and yes, since he
seems to be ok with what you people write and even provides you with
"ammunition" now and then, the poor reputation you and jb have here
spills over to Tweet.
And, by association, to the whole IGS. Sad.
For the record - I do not speak for the entire group either, and I
have no clue if the portion of the readers that agree with me is major
or minor. From the emails I get, from the posts I see, and from the
personal contact I have with some posters and lurkers, I would guess
that it is a major portion. But who knows...
*****
By the way, Michael - I bet with the friend that you will stay
away from RGG for at least a year after your hissy fit in the fake art
thread. You lost that bet for me, and I hold you personally accountable
for that. :)
--
__________________________________
- Bantari
kapr...@yahoo.com
Bantari
says...
So is posting posts like these. :)
Robert Jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> Rules threads (of great interest to rules experts and no-one else),
There are different kinds of rules threads. Since you do not seem
to read them, you cannot know. There are
- beginner questions threads
- advanced questions threads
- comparisons of rulesets
- discussion of rulesets
- go rules research for go rules experts
- go rules research for all go theorists
- go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
strategy)
- etc.
> and server wars;
Surely there are server wars and other wars that pretend to be
server wars.
> apart from Charles' recent post, no other interesting
> go content in well over a month.
This means that you do not read this group carefully. There
may be more articles about servers or rules than other articles,
however, this does not mean that there are no other articles.
> That's fairly dead,
It is dead if YOU WANT TO PERCEIVE IT AS DEAD.
> as far as I can tell, for anyone who doesn't have an
> interest in the above two meta-topics.
What is a meta-topic according to your definition?
> I have no interest at all in
> rules flamewars or server flamewars,
It is your freedom to killfilter rules or servers.
However, what is a rules flamewar if you do not even read
articles about rules to judge? Anyway, what is your definition?
> so the group has almost nothing of
> significant *go* interest
Go rules and go servers are topics of go interest. If YOU filter
them, then this does not mean that those articles are not there
to be studied.
> - positions, analysis, discussion of games,
No doubt there could be more like this. The last time I tried
to establish regular analysis threads here, I was one of too
few persons that would have participated. What about YOU? Why
don't you discuss and analyse practical go theory here
frequently? It is not the group that is dead but the spirit
of some readers that expect everything but contribute little.
Flood this group with your articles and the server wars are
lost amidst them!
> The rules content [...] that's not
> Go, as commonly understood;
The rules are the most basic part of Go. Everything else is
a consequence. Go strategy is an application of the rules.
All about Go consists also of its rules. You may like this
or not - it is a fact.
> it's something else halfway between pure
> logic and legal theory.
Since Go rules are the fundament of Go, it is not something ELSE,
even if it is also about logic and legal theory.
***
For which purpose do you criticise Go rules threads at all?
Because there are too few people that publish other articles
besides the rules articles here? Then you should not criticise
the rules articles but the missing authors for other articles!
Because there are too many rules articles? How could one be
happier than by being offered a too great choice of articles?!
Make readers happy - publish your daily article here!
--
robert jasiek
Bantari
says...
> >I am sure that I don't need you to tell me what I meant to say, given
> >your abilities at discerning when I'm jesting. Of course, I'm not
> >privy to this secret support that you get from most RGG readers, but
> >they seem to be keeping their silence admirably in public. I'm sure
> >you'll receive many dozens of emails from them explaining why this
> >should be so.
>
> Sarcasm, Mr. Lancashire? :) There are many people who read this group but do
> not post to it for various reasons, I'm sure you could provide your own list
> of these with a little thought. I do not receive "many dozens" of emails in
> support of my posts, but I will say that for every email from someone like
> Locher deriding what I do here, I probably get three in support. My posting
> here is a lot more popular than some here would have you believe.
I bet.
Mud throwing and pig wrestling are definitely spectators' sports.
Lol.
> Do you
> honestly believe that if the only response I got to my efforts was the abuse
> heaped upon me in this group that I would continue? Give me a break.
Well, malf. You get support for what you post, I get support for
what I post, and without a doubt, others get support too. And where
does it leave us? Flaming endlessly goaded by the "support" emails we
receive from third parties who "for various reasons" are unwilling to
get their own fingers dirty?
Think about what you post and the tone of it, not about how many
blood-thirsty lurkers cheer you up from the sidelines. In the end, it
is *you* ruining your reputation (in case you care), not them.
Also, think about how your actions and tone reflect back at IGS
and Tweet himself.
Bantari
says...
> > - positions, analysis, discussion of games,
>
> No doubt there could be more like this. The last time I tried
> to establish regular analysis threads here, I was one of too
> few persons that would have participated. What about YOU? Why
> don't you discuss and analyse practical go theory here
> frequently? It is not the group that is dead but the spirit
> of some readers that expect everything but contribute little.
> Flood this group with your articles and the server wars are
> lost amidst them!
This is probably the smartest thing I have read on RGG for quite
some time. Seriously. Thanks, Robert.
Michael Alford
------------------snip---------------------------------------
>The rules are the most basic part of Go. Everything else is
>a consequence. Go strategy is an application of the rules.
>All about Go consists also of its rules. You may like this
>or not - it is a fact.
An excellent point, Robert. One only has to call to mind the famous incident
involving Wu. If I may: when I was a young man at university, I supplemented
my GI benefits check by hustling card tables and pool tables. The basic
concept there is "if you don't know the rules, don't play." I have enjoyed
many of your articles since you started posting.
Michael
James
"Bill Spight" <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F5F481C...@pacbell.net...
Michael Alford
>
>Kluck wrote:
>> =
>
>> In bjgkg...@enews2.newsguy.com, =AB Michael Alford =BB <malf@spirito=
>ne.com>
>> wrote :
>> =
>
>> > Heh, come and get it :) I am 2d on IGS and I play lots of free games=
> :-)
>> =
>
>> Player: malf
>> Game: go (1)
>> Language: default
>> Rating: 4k* 26
>> Rated Games: 41
>> Rank: NR 0
>> Wins: 320
>> Losses: 434
>> Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Sat Sep 6 19:25:28 2003
>> Last Access(local): (Not on) Sun Sep 7 04:25:28 2003
>> Address: ma...@spiritone.com
>> Reg date: Tue Feb 23 04:39:33 1999
>> Info: Old Man of the forest, IGSer since Sept 94
>
>Yes, but he's 6d when it comes to flaming - just a pity that
>Big Duck is 9p
Tell you what, you didn't notice that "malf" is nine years old, and doesn't
play rated games. Let's play bangneki, me as IGS 4k :) You can name the
stakes.
Michael
mullens
I just think that Big Duck plays a steadier and calmer game with some
moves that catch one unawares.
Actually, I'd prefer a face to face game - and there would be no bad blood
at all. We only exist because of our counter flamers. However, if you
really are 2 dan (even US 2 dan ;-)) you'd be too strong for me.
Bill Spight
> Why should Bill Spight have his own rec.games.go?
>
;-)
> "Bill Spight" <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3F5F481C...@pacbell.net...
> > Dear Erik,
> >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > rec.games.go.analysis
> > > rec.games.go.computer
> > > rec.games.go.misc
> > > rec.games.go.politics
> > > rec.games.go.rules
> > > rec.games.go.servers
> > >
> >
> > How about rec.games.go.bs?
Bill
Andrew Walkingshaw
>
>
> Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
>> Rules threads (of great interest to rules experts and no-one else),
>
> There are different kinds of rules threads. Since you do not seem
> to read them, you cannot know. There are
I do read them; I'm guilty of some imprecision here, as I don't regard
the "beginner" questions as rules threads per se, but as ... well,
beginner questions. That's obviously a valuable role for rgg. What I'm
referring to are the extremely-detailed (experts-only, really) threads
on the wording, vanishingly rare corner cases, and interpretation of
rules.
I regard it as easier and more congenial to rely on people exercising
common sense; you disagree, and I don't have a problem with the
existence of the rules threads. Indeed, they're most of the *directly*
go-related content round here.
> - go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
> strategy)
I regard exploiting the rules (which is a grey area) as beyond the pale,
and would not be willing to play opponents who play the game in such a
bad spirit.
>> and server wars;
>
> Surely there are server wars and other wars that pretend to be
> server wars.
The server wars are tied in with personal squabbles, which possibly
explains their vitriol.
>
>> apart from Charles' recent post, no other interesting
>> go content in well over a month.
>
> This means that you do not read this group carefully. There
> may be more articles about servers or rules than other articles,
> however, this does not mean that there are no other articles.
Very few other articles; I'm confident the statistics would back
me up on this.
>
> No doubt there could be more like this. The last time I tried
> to establish regular analysis threads here, I was one of too
> few persons that would have participated. What about YOU? Why
> don't you discuss and analyse practical go theory here
> frequently?
a) The complete absence of other people doing it (this is a
bootstrapping problem - there's a community of people doing this
on Senseis', but not here, so naturally people who want that will
spend more time there)
b) I don't wish to mislead other posters with my incorrect analysis;
I'm a weak player (three kyu).
c) I have a PhD to do.
> The rules are the most basic part of Go. Everything else is
> a consequence. Go strategy is an application of the rules.
> All about Go consists also of its rules. You may like this
> or not - it is a fact.
True, but people _have_ a working understanding of those rules.
Searching for corner-cases in order to gain an advantage is something
which, to me, is not really Go - it's searching for an edge by whatever
means necessary, and I can't understand the desire to do that.
Searching for corner-cases and eliminating them - such as in your
Simplified Ing Rules - is a very different matter, which I applaud.
However, I have neither the experience nor the time to become
sufficiently expert in the parts of logic necessary to contribute to
such discussions.
> Because there are too few people that publish other articles
> besides the rules articles here? Then you should not criticise
> the rules articles but the missing authors for other articles!
Agreed; it's mainly the flamewars which drive people away, and the
Go rules threads are not the problem there - it's the incessant,
infernal squabbling between tweet, malf, jb, frl, etcetera.
It does *none* of them any credit.
--
Andrew Walkingshaw | andrew...@lexical.org.uk
Robert Jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> I regard it as easier and more congenial to rely on people exercising
> common sense; you disagree
Maybe your understanding of common sense suggests that rules should
not be applied if they cannot be understood. My understanding of
common sense suggests that such rules should be used that can be
understood and applied by everybody.
> > - go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
> > strategy)
>
> I regard exploiting the rules (which is a grey area) as beyond the pale,
> and would not be willing to play opponents who play the game in such a
> bad spirit.
Use google, advanced groups search for an example where rules
understanding leads to high level strategy:
Subject = Winning Strategy for Taiwanese Professionals
After reading that, explain us once more what "exploiting the
rules" means.
BTW, if you search for people that promote rules without
exceptions, then I will be on top of such a list. I am forced
to apply rules with exceptions. Whom do you criticise for that?
> Very few other articles; I'm confident the statistics would back
> me up on this.
That is a consequence of my current research project, which leaves
me less time to improve the current statistical data:)
> a) The complete absence of other people doing it (this is a
> bootstrapping problem - there's a community of people doing this
> on Senseis', but not here, so naturally people who want that will
> spend more time there)
If nobody publishes first here, then there are no articles...
> b) I don't wish to mislead other posters with my incorrect analysis;
> I'm a weak player (three kyu).
Even a weak kyu player is able to pose questions.
> c) I have a PhD to do.
So what:)
> True, but people _have_ a working understanding of those rules.
If that were true, then they could explain it to me. They cannot.
> Searching for corner-cases in order to gain an advantage is something
> which, to me, is not really Go
Eh, why only cases in the CORNER?
In an 8 stone handicap game against a player 3 ranks weaker
than I was my opponent complained seriously about my invasion
under his shimari. He continued to complain about my unfair
play after his shimari died. He threatened to stop playing
go entirely and insulted me. - Is this your point? Winning is
unethical?!
> - it's searching for an edge by whatever
> means necessary, and I can't understand the desire to do that.
It does not matter whether it is associated with a desire of winning.
What matters is the aim of the game: to win. Each strategy leading
to or aiming at winning fits the aim of the game.
Maybe you are still a kyu player because you hate winning?
> Agreed; it's mainly the flamewars which drive people away, and the
> Go rules threads are not the problem there - it's the incessant,
> infernal squabbling between tweet, malf, jb, frl, etcetera.
I see.
--
robert jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw
>
>> Searching for corner-cases in order to gain an advantage is something
>> which, to me, is not really Go
>
> Eh, why only cases in the CORNER?
A "corner-case" in English means an imprecision or ambiguity in the
rules which can only occur in an extremely limited and unlikely set
of circumstances; it doesn't refer to the corner of the Go board.
Apologies for any confusion I've caused there.
> It does not matter whether it is associated with a desire of winning.
> What matters is the aim of the game: to win. Each strategy leading
> to or aiming at winning fits the aim of the game.
>
> Maybe you are still a kyu player because you hate winning?
I definitely don't hate winning - but I would not be happy winning by
exploiting an ambiguity in the rules unknown to my opponent. Happily,
this has yet to be a problem for me in a couple of years of playing.
>> Agreed; it's mainly the flamewars which drive people away, and the
>> Go rules threads are not the problem there - it's the incessant,
>> infernal squabbling between tweet, malf, jb, frl, etcetera.
>
> I see.
The Go rules threads are obviously ontopic; because this has become seen
as a good venue for them (which it undoubtedly is), and there are many
rules experts here, it's not surprising they're high quality.
However, the less hardy souls who may want to engage in discussion of
less abstruse matters have been driven away by a small group of people
who are behaving in a disgraceful manner - definitely _not_ including
yourself, I add for the avoidance of doubt. I'm sure the miscreants know
who they are, though they seem not to give a damn.
Nick Wedd
Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> writes
>In article <3F5F52CE...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek wrote:
>> - go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
>> strategy)
>
>I regard exploiting the rules (which is a grey area) as beyond the pale,
>and would not be willing to play opponents who play the game in such a
>bad spirit.
I think it is useful here to draw a distinction between exploiting the
rules of play, and exploiting the rules for handling irregularities. The
former is good, the latter is IMHO bad. I will use Bridge as an analogy
for Go.
In Go, the rules of play are very simple. The rules covering the
"disputes settlement phase" (in any rule set) are more complex.
In Bridge, the rules of play are moderately complex. They are
frequently broken, through error: players bid out of turn, drops cards,
revoke, and so on. Such incidents are known as "irregularities". Most
of the Laws of Bridge are concerned with handling irregularities.
The Laws of Bridge clearly distinguish the rules of play from the rules
dealing with irregularities. Bridge players are expected to know the
rules of play. They are not expected to know the rules covering
irregularities; they are expected to call the Tournament Director when
an irregularity occurs.
If a Bridge player makes skilful use of the rules of play, this is
commendable. He has executed a squeeze, or maybe a throw-in, and is
praised for it. However, if a Bridge player makes skilful use of the
rules covering irregularities, this is regarded as cheating.
For example:
Suppose (after some sequence of bidding) I decide that we should play
the hand in three spades. However I believe that if I bid three spades,
my partner will be encouraged, and will bid four spades; and that this
contract will fail. Therefore, I bid two spades, an insufficient bid.
The Tournament Director is then called, and (if he thinks that my action
was merely the result of incompetence) he cites the rule which says that
I must increase this to a sufficient bid, and that my partner is
thereafter barred from the bidding. Thus I achieve the result that I
wanted.
However, it is definitely not acceptable to do this deliberately. If a
competent player acted in this way, he would not be praised. He would
be reprimanded for cheating, and probably barred from continuing to play
in that event or club. If a beginner acted in this way, the Tournament
Director would give him a lecture explaining that such behaviour is
regarded as cheating, and a severe warning against repeating it.
I think it is regrettable that the various rules of Go do not:
(1) distinguish the rules of play from the rules covering disputes; and
(2) make it clear that an attempt to make creative use of the latter is
cheating.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Andrew Walkingshaw
> In message <slrnbm0u2d.1r0...@athena.jcn.srcf.net>, Andrew
> Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> writes
>>In article <3F5F52CE...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek wrote:
>>> - go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
>>> strategy)
>>
>>I regard exploiting the rules (which is a grey area) as beyond the pale,
>>and would not be willing to play opponents who play the game in such a
>>bad spirit.
>
> I think it is useful here to draw a distinction between exploiting the
> rules of play, and exploiting the rules for handling irregularities. The
> former is good, the latter is IMHO bad. I will use Bridge as an analogy
> for Go.
>
Thank you; this is a very clear expression of my feelings on the matter.
I wouldn't regard a deep knowledge of the results of different ko rules
as cheating, for instance; however, the rewards of such knowledge are
not great, given how rarely it has an effect.
Michael Alford
---------------------stuff snipped-------------------------------
>Actually, I'd prefer a face to face game - and there would be no bad blood
>at all. We only exist because of our counter flamers. However, if you
>really are 2 dan (even US 2 dan ;-)) you'd be too strong for me.
Face to face is of course best, but I have to tell you I've looked for that
beer you had on the table in the picture, and I can't find it anywhere around
here :)
Michael
-
Andrew Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> wrote:
> ... it's mainly the flamewars which drive people away, and the
> Go rules threads are not the problem there - it's the incessant,
> infernal squabbling between tweet, malf, jb, frl, etcetera.
Draw a connectivity diagram among those four, and
identify which of the six lines comprise squabblings.
> It does *none* of them any credit.
Oh, is somebody being awarded "credit" for r.g.g. posts?
- regards
- jb
Andrew Walkingshaw
>
>> It does *none* of them any credit.
>
> Oh, is somebody being awarded "credit" for r.g.g. posts?
Well, according to those who are claiming KGS lost out on some unnamed
deal because of some unnamed insult, it appears so; and in the social
sense, it's certainly true.
Back in the killfile with you.
- Andrew
Robert Jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> I would not be happy winning by
> exploiting an ambiguity in the rules unknown to my opponent.
I do not exploit what I recognize as ambiguous in the rules as if
it were unambiguous. However, my rules knowledge is so extensive
that there might be many cases that I can explain as unambiguous
while you would expect them to be ambiguous. I do not not win just
because you (or any other opponent) fails to study rules
application carefully. That would be like not playing a joseki
because the opponent does not know joseki.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
Nick Wedd wrote:
> In Go, the rules of play are very simple.
This is a surprising theory:)
> The rules covering the
> "disputes settlement phase" (in any rule set) are more complex.
Of those that have any such phase at all.
> I think it is regrettable that the various rules of Go do not:
> (1) distinguish the rules of play from the rules covering disputes; and
> (2) make it clear that an attempt to make creative use of the latter is
> cheating.
You use "dispute" in a new meaning for "result determination".
I do not call that disputes. During result determination a
dispute can arise if the player disagree about how to apply the
rules about result determination.
If the players disagree in such a case, then typically one of them
will have an understanding of right application of the rules for
result determination while the opponent will have an understanding
of wrong application of the rules for result determination. IIUYC,
you want to punish always the opponent, regardless whether he
disagreed intentionally or due to an imperfect understanding of
the rules. Very strange. I would rather punish only provable
intentional bending of the rules.
--
robert jasiek
-
Andrew Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> wrote:
> I'm sure the miscreants know who they are, though
> they seem not to give a damn.
From: - (jum...@juno.com)
Subject: Re: A Trick Play by Patrick Bridges ???
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Date: 2001-05-01 16:49:08 PST
[ ... ]
"I gather that you're a racial purist who is opposed to miscreants
and undesirables in this forum? Next you'll complain about Jews?
How long will it take us to arrive at Godwin's Law one more time?"
- regards
- jb
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Oh, is somebody being awarded "credit" for r.g.g. posts?
Andrew Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> wrote:
> Well, according to those who are claiming KGS lost out on some
> unnamed deal because of some unnamed insult, it appears so;
Which tends to contradict your earlier claim, concerning
the -loss- of credit? Until that "unnamed deal" is announced,
I don't suppose that this argument flies one way or another.
> ... and in the social sense, it's certainly true.
> Back in the killfile with you.
However I consider it an advantage not to associate with killfilers.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!"
-- Cheerful Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bantari
says...
> > True, but people _have_ a working understanding of those rules.
>
> If that were true, then they could explain it to me. They cannot.
This might more your problem than their problem. :)
Barry Phease
> I think it is useful here to draw a distinction between exploiting the
> rules of play, and exploiting the rules for handling irregularities. The
> former is good, the latter is IMHO bad.
Perhaps you would agree that in a game between Japanese and Chinese
players using Chinese rules then it is acceptable for the Chinese player
to win by a better knowledge of the ko at the end of the game.
Whereas you might think that refusing to pass at the end of the game and
removing all the opponent's dead stones while your opponent passes and
then claiming that all your stones (including eyeless groups) cannot be
removed because both players have passes twice, belongs to the latter
case.
>I will use Bridge as an analogy
> for Go.
Very good analogy,
> I think it is regrettable that the various rules of Go do not:
> (1) distinguish the rules of play from the rules covering disputes; and
> (2) make it clear that an attempt to make creative use of the latter is
> cheating.
Would it not be better to use rules that didn't allow for disputes to be
used in this way? It is terrible to have rules which change in a second
"disputes" phase. Chinese style rules with something like the Bill Spight
game ending rule along with unlimited resumptions seem to be ideal. The
"disputes" phase has the same rules, therefore no anomolies arise.
--
Barry Phease
Mike Vaughn
> In message <slrnbm0u2d.1r0...@athena.jcn.srcf.net>, Andrew
> Walkingshaw <andrew...@lexical.org.uk> writes
> >In article <3F5F52CE...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> >> - go rules research for all go players (who care to improve their
> >> strategy)
> >
> >I regard exploiting the rules (which is a grey area) as beyond the pale,
> >and would not be willing to play opponents who play the game in such a
> >bad spirit.
>
> I think it is useful here to draw a distinction between exploiting the
> rules of play, and exploiting the rules for handling irregularities. The
> former is good, the latter is IMHO bad. I will use Bridge as an analogy
> for Go.
But the only 'irregularities' in go involve the rule of alternate play,
and the rules for ko situations, whatever set of rules those happen to
be. There are also rules for counting at the end of the game, but in
the rare cases of dispute, there are always means of adjudication.
> In Go, the rules of play are very simple. The rules covering the
> "disputes settlement phase" (in any rule set) are more complex.
But nothing really exploitable in the way that the bridge rules are.
> In Bridge, the rules of play are moderately complex. They are
> frequently broken, through error: players bid out of turn, drops cards,
> revoke, and so on. Such incidents are known as "irregularities". Most
> of the Laws of Bridge are concerned with handling irregularities.
>
> The Laws of Bridge clearly distinguish the rules of play from the rules
> dealing with irregularities. Bridge players are expected to know the
> rules of play. They are not expected to know the rules covering
> irregularities; they are expected to call the Tournament Director when
> an irregularity occurs.
>
> If a Bridge player makes skilful use of the rules of play, this is
> commendable. He has executed a squeeze, or maybe a throw-in, and is
> praised for it. However, if a Bridge player makes skilful use of the
> rules covering irregularities, this is regarded as cheating.
>
> For example:
> Suppose (after some sequence of bidding) I decide that we should play
> the hand in three spades. However I believe that if I bid three spades,
> my partner will be encouraged, and will bid four spades; and that this
> contract will fail. Therefore, I bid two spades, an insufficient bid.
> The Tournament Director is then called, and (if he thinks that my action
> was merely the result of incompetence) he cites the rule which says that
> I must increase this to a sufficient bid, and that my partner is
> thereafter barred from the bidding. Thus I achieve the result that I
> wanted.
Not to be pedantic, but this is not exactly the rule in bridge, as I
am sure you know well. In fact, making the bid sufficient in the same
suit does not incur a penalty unless the original bid was conventional.
> However, it is definitely not acceptable to do this deliberately. If a
> competent player acted in this way, he would not be praised. He would
> be reprimanded for cheating, and probably barred from continuing to play
> in that event or club.
But this _is_ the point. Gaming the rules is not acceptable in bridge.
But bridge involves four players, two pairs of players who often act
in partnership :-) And the compexities of the rules in bridge are mainly
to constrain the communications between partners. Totally different
kind of game.
> If a beginner acted in this way, the Tournament
> Director would give him a lecture explaining that such behaviour is
> regarded as cheating, and a severe warning against repeating it.
>
> I think it is regrettable that the various rules of Go do not:
> (1) distinguish the rules of play from the rules covering disputes; and
> (2) make it clear that an attempt to make creative use of the latter is
> cheating.
Maybe this does not need to be made explicit, since the opportunities are
not really there, and tradition speaks against it.
Just as creative use of rules in golf is frowned upon, even though there
is no explicit statement of this in the rules.
same used to be true in cricket, I understand :)
>
> Nick
--
Mike Vaughn
"A ship is safe in a harbor --
But that is not what ships are built for."
Fu, Ren-Li
I remember playing you before malf. I took black and it was pretty close.
And you say you're 2d IGS? interesting...
-frl
Robert Jasiek
Barry Phease wrote:
> Whereas you might think that refusing to pass
Choosing a move, whether play or pass, is a player's right. By using
the word "refusing" do you claim otherwise?
> >I will use Bridge as an analogy
> > for Go.
>
> Very good analogy,
I consider it to be a weak analogy because Bridge-type irregularities
are common in Bridge (it seems) but scarce in Go. It would be
something like touching the board with a stone, then moving the stone
to a different place.
> Chinese style rules with something like the Bill Spight
> game ending rule along with unlimited resumptions seem to be ideal.
WHY? What is better about such rules that about Simple Rules?
> The
> "disputes" phase has the same rules, therefore no anomolies arise.
What do you call "the same rules"?
--
robert jasiek
Barry Phease
>
>
> Barry Phease wrote:
>> Whereas you might think that refusing to pass
>
> Choosing a move, whether play or pass, is a player's right. By using
> the word "refusing" do you claim otherwise?
Of course. I was just questioning what Nick would consider using the
disputes provisions to advantage. "Refusing" here just means refraining from
passing when most people would expect it.
>> Chinese style rules with something like the Bill Spight
>> game ending rule along with unlimited resumptions seem to be ideal.
>
> WHY? What is better about such rules that about Simple Rules?
If resumptions are limited then that means that in the second phase
passing is more severe than in the first phase. The Spight game ending
provisions mean that the game must progress in each phase.
>
>> The
>> "disputes" phase has the same rules, therefore no anomolies arise.
>
> What do you call "the same rules"?
No difference in ko rule (eg pass for ko), no change in scoring (eg pass
stones introduced). The same rules should apply in a resumption/disputes
resolution phase.
Nick Wedd
<bar...@es.co.nz> writes
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:13:43 +0200, Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Barry Phease wrote:
>>> Whereas you might think that refusing to pass
>>
>> Choosing a move, whether play or pass, is a player's right. By using
>> the word "refusing" do you claim otherwise?
>
>Of course. I was just questioning what Nick would consider using the
>disputes provisions to advantage. "Refusing" here just means refraining from
>passing when most people would expect it.
I consider that initiating the disputes provisions, without indicating
to my opponent what it is that one is disputing, should not be
acceptable.
I wish the SST (and other) rule sets clearly demarcated the "rules of
play" from the "rules for handling irregularities", and stated that
creative use of the latter is unacceptable, as the Laws of Bridge do. I
consider that for a game to end (with successive passes) without the
players being in agreement about the status of all the groups is an
irregularity. There is nothing reprehensible about this happening, but
it is reprehensible if, _after_ the successive passes, a player acts
other than to try to resolve the status of the disputed groups in good
faith and in accordance with the rules.
Robert Jasiek
Barry Phease wrote:
> If resumptions are limited then that means that in the second phase
> passing is more severe than in the first phase. The Spight game ending
> provisions mean that the game must progress in each phase.
Can you explain this in detail, please?
> > What do you call "the same rules"?
>
> No difference in ko rule (eg pass for ko), no change in scoring (eg pass
> stones introduced). The same rules should apply in a resumption/disputes
> resolution phase.
I have been designing territory scoring rules with positional
superko during the alternating-sequence and with positional
superko in each hypothetical-sequence. I have not made up my
mind yet what the difference will be between the following rules
for positional superko in hypothetical-analysis:
1) The positional superko in each hypothetical-sequence starts
its history from the final-position of the alternating-sequence.
2) The positional superko in each hypothetical-sequence starts
its history from the setup-position at the start of the
alternating-sequence, even if the hypothetical-sequence starts
with the player that made the last move of the alternating-sequence.
(Besides it will have to be studied whether pass fights can occur.)
Natural situational superko, situational superko, or other forms
of superko will make a decision about subforms even more
difficult.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
Nick Wedd wrote:
> I wish the SST (and other) rule sets clearly demarcated the "rules of
> play" from the "rules for handling irregularities", and stated that
> creative use of the latter is unacceptable,
What is "creative use"?
> it is reprehensible if, _after_ the successive passes, a player acts
> other than to try to resolve the status of the disputed groups in good
> faith and in accordance with the rules.
That reminds me of a rengo game with the usual finite time limit.
In the spirit of the Pair Go Association's pair go rules, I discussed
necessiety of two potential teire with not obvious status and in
different parts of the board. (In fact, none of the 6 players knew
the status immediately.) I started to analyse hypothetical-sequences.
One of my partners had a different sense of good faith than mine and
that of the pair go rules. So what is "good faith"? (BTW, it turned
out that one of the potential teire was a teire, the other not.)
--
robert jasiek
Nick Wedd
writes
>Nick Wedd wrote:
>> I wish the SST (and other) rule sets clearly demarcated the "rules of
>> play" from the "rules for handling irregularities", and stated that
>> creative use of the latter is unacceptable,
>
>What is "creative use"?
Using a consequence of the rules that is not generally known, and might
not have been among the intentions of the drafter of the rules.
For the rules of play, with weak players, this might include a snapback.
For the rules for establishing the status of groups after the game end,
this would include invoking the resolution procedure without telling
your opponent that you are doing so.
Tommie
> ... irregularities ... scarce in Go. It would be
Hello Robert!
Not really off-topic, rather providing proof that it happens in Go, I
would like to ask you whether you remember our incident in the 1994
Maastricht EM tournament.
We were around the 20th-something move and I had the choice to extend
from a cross-cut.
Of course there are several extensions possible and after I had put
down the stone on one intersection, I shifted it to the neighbouring
one (the cross-cut extension +90° from the first).
You sent for the referee Frank Jansen and we, you admitted in the
discussion with him that I never let my finger go from the stone in
question. I recall the movement had taken a second (two the upmost)
and I had reasons that it were also my words accompanying it (in the
tenor of "I think I like it better here") which made you filing a
protest.
I lost the argument, Frank decided against me which I took as a gentle
Go player and I had to play the stone at the intersection where the
first movement of the stone ended (luckily an extension!).
1) What would have happened if I hadn't hit an intersection, but the
square between 4 intersections?
2) Sometimes it happens and is an accepted move-making procedure in
non-formal games to put the stone intentionally on an intersection -
which clearly is not the intended one and then shifting it to the
intended ending position.
3) Because of my different intent at first, this scenario does NOT
resemble our case, but technically it is identical.
(You could hear my words, otherwise usually one could only guess
someones intent).
Robert, please don't get me wrong: inspite that I find you a
rule-hardliner on the hawkish side I admire your contribution to the
discussion about good rules on Go, tournament organization etc. and
find it necessary for the development of Go.
Hence, my questions are:
Do you remember our incident?
What do your rules say about the way of placing stones (leading here
to shifting one stone)?
What do other rule sets have to say about it?
Above point 1) sounds stupid to most, but if "rules are rules" and
have something to say about it, could it lead to a forced "pass play"?
(against the intent of the player!)
Does any rule set mentions the concept "intent"?
Would you decide the same way today or did you become more lenient
than a decade ago? (of course only if the rules have nothing to say
about it!)
Many friendly greetings from
Thomas
Robert Jasiek
Nick Wedd wrote:
> >What is "creative use"?
> Using a consequence of the rules that is not generally known, and might
> not have been among the intentions of the drafter of the rules.
This is extremely imprecise.
E.g., for J1989 Rules it might or might not include:
- "definition" of life
- existence of two types of life
- "definition" of death
- pass for ko rule
- "definition" of eye point
- "definition" of dame
- "definition" of in seki
- "definition" of territory
- the requirement that it is the opponent that removes dead stones
from territory
- the existence of passes
- etc.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
Tommie wrote:
> Not really off-topic, rather providing proof that it happens in Go, I
> would like to ask you whether you remember our incident in the 1994
> Maastricht EM tournament.
The 1994 EGC was very heavily loaded with rules disputes in my games.
I recall three others of that two required a referee. Each of the
other disputes was very interesting. Maybe therefore I have forgotten
our dispute. Very sorry for my bad memory.
> We were around the 20th-something move and I had the choice to extend
> from a cross-cut.
> Of course there are several extensions possible and after I had put
> down the stone on one intersection, I shifted it to the neighbouring
> one (the cross-cut extension +90° from the first).
>
> You sent for the referee Frank Jansen and we, you admitted in the
> discussion with him that I never let my finger go from the stone in
> question. I recall the movement had taken a second (two the upmost)
> and I had reasons that it were also my words accompanying it (in the
> tenor of "I think I like it better here") which made you filing a
> protest.
I do not remember this but let us assume that it happened as
you report.
> I lost the argument, Frank decided against me which I took as a gentle
> Go player and I had to play the stone at the intersection where the
> first movement of the stone ended (luckily an extension!).
>
> 1) What would have happened if I hadn't hit an intersection, but the
> square between 4 intersections?
It depends on whether you leave the stone in between intersections,
move it to one intersection and leave it there, or move it to
one and then to another intersection. Besides if any part of moving
takes more than, for simplification say, a minute, then additional
questions arise.
> 2) Sometimes it happens and is an accepted move-making procedure in
> non-formal games to put the stone intentionally on an intersection -
> which clearly is not the intended one and then shifting it to the
> intended ending position.
In non-formal games I do not call a referee:) Maybe I would
make a joke about heavy clam shells;(
> Robert, please don't get me wrong: inspite that I find you a
> rule-hardliner on the hawkish side
That's what the other two, earlier speakers of the first EGF
Referee Workshop said jokingly when I did not sign their
certificates (proving their attendance) before my speech:)
> Do you remember our incident?
I seems to be one of the very few rules incidents I do not
remember...
> What do your rules say about the way of placing stones (leading here
> to shifting one stone)?
I have not written my - complete - own suggestion of tournament
rules - and to please Ted S. I add - yet.
> What do other rule sets have to say about it?
It differs. You find some in the web.
Current EGF Tournament Rules with official commentary []:
§3c
"[...] Following this each player presses the clock after finishing his
move. (see 5f).
[In the following the word "move" indicates move or pass.]"
§5j
"A move is fixed at the moment the stone is released after touching the
board.
When no prisoners are taken, this finishes the move. When prisoners are
taken, the move is finished after removal of all prisoners from
the board.
As soon as the move is fixed, it may not be changed, even with consent
of the opponent.
[If the hand of a player hovers unnecessarily long above the board,
it is considered hindering the opponent.]"
Please note that in 1994 I was not firm with the contents of the EGF
Tournament Rules. They differed slightly from today's rules.
§5j says little about moving a stone to another intersection.
The EGF Tournament Rules do not define "move" clearly. So one
can only try to grasp their spirit.
> Above point 1) sounds stupid to most, but if "rules are rules" and
> have something to say about it, could it lead to a forced "pass play"?
> (against the intent of the player!)
It is the duty of the moving player to execute the move in
such a way that the opponent is not hindered, even if the
tournament rules fail to specify and say this explicitly.
In particular, it may not cost opposing time that a stone
is placed not at an unequivocal intersection.
> Does any rule set mentions the concept "intent"?
I do not remember that but I am not sure if it might be
somewhere.
In a dispute a referee may (or should) first try to
mediate. Even this is hardly found in a tournament ruleset.
All tournament rulesets are pretty doubtful so far.
> Would you decide the same way today
Yes, provided it is clear that the opponent has been hindered,
that there has been a chance that the player might have
taken a clue from a joyful reaction about the first touched
intersection, or that the player might have read sequences
while the stone helps him to visualize those. It is neither
fair to hinder the opponent by taking him the view on the board
for a second too long nor fair to change the intersection
because the opponent took a relieved breath or relaxed his
priorly well noticeable tension. Also it is generally accepted
that reading sequences is done without putting any stones on the
board. So yes, today I have even clear, convincing reasons for
that.
> Thomas
Thomas Derz or something like that?
--
robert jasiek
Nick Wedd
writes
>Nick Wedd wrote:
Robert,
I am not trying to write a new rule. I am trying to convey an idea to
you. Have I succeeded?
ian
> Nick Wedd wrote:
> > In Go, the rules of play are very simple.
> This is a surprising theory:)
>
> > The rules covering the
> > "disputes settlement phase" (in any rule set) are more complex.
>
> Of those that have any such phase at all.
>
> > I think it is regrettable that the various rules of Go do not:
> > (1) distinguish the rules of play from the rules covering disputes; and
> > (2) make it clear that an attempt to make creative use of the latter is
> > cheating.
>
> You use "dispute" in a new meaning for "result determination".
> I do not call that disputes. During result determination a
> dispute can arise if the player disagree about how to apply the
> rules about result determination.
>
afraid I am completely unable to understand what it means.
thanks
Robert Jasiek
Nick Wedd wrote:
> I am not trying to write a new rule. I am trying to convey an idea to
> you. Have I succeeded?
Partly. I understand the direction in that you suggest something.
However, I do not understand how it could be used in practice as
long as it is very imprecise and what the purpose of something
is that cannot be applied because it is hardly understood.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
ian wrote:
> > You use "dispute" in a new meaning for "result determination".
> > I do not call that disputes. During result determination a
> > dispute can arise if the player disagree about how to apply the
> > rules about result determination.
> Could I ask you to try rewriting the above paragraph Robert, I'm
> afraid I am completely unable to understand what it means.
In a Go context, "dispute" has been used as a word with the
following meaning: "disagreement between players raised to
a level at that some of the players have made an official
protest and asked for arbitration by referees".
"result determination" is a term that has been used with a
meaning like "determination of the result of a game since
the moment that ended all changes to the board position and
until the players both agree that either Black wins, White
wins, the game is a tie, or the game has some exceptional
outcome. In practice, "result determination" includes an
application of rules that assigns a value to each intersection
(like 1 point for Black, 2 points for Black, 1 point for White,
2 points for white, or 0 points), sums up that by using a
counting procedure, and draws a conclusion for what the
outcome of the game is.
Typically the first part of result determination is an
evaluation of the board position that has the function to
assign a value to each intersection. Assignations differ due
to the used scoring method. E.g., with Stone Scoring each
intersection with a black stone has the value 1, each intersection
with a white stone has the value -1 (i.e. 1 point for White). E.g.,
with Territory Scoring rules matters become much more difficult.
To assign a value to each intersection one first needs to assign
"alive" or "dead" to each string and then - after some further
adventures - assign "territory of Black", "territory of White", or
"no territory to each intersection. This is followed by assigning
1 for each empty intersection with the label "territory for Black",
2 for each occupied intersection with the label "territory for Black",
-1 for each empty intersection with the label "territory for White",
-2 for each occupied intersection with the label "territory for White",
0 for each intersection labelled "no territory".
Nick refers to that evaluation of the board position. Somehow the
rules require the players to make the evaluation. Each player
makes it (verbally or in his mind). If the players make it likewise,
then Nick calls that "there is no dispute". If the players make it
with differing consequences, then Nick calls that "dispute".
This usage of the word "dispute" is a new invention by Nick. I.e. he
uses this word with a new meaning.
I point it out that it is a new meaning so that one does not confuse
it with the priorly known, other meaning of the word "dispute".
Then I say that I do not use the word "dispute" to describe
"the players produce different consequences while making an
evaluation of the board position as the first part of result
determination".
Next I explain that during result determination a dispute can arise.
This is a dispute in the sense of the priorly known meaning of the
word "dispute". I continue to say that such a dispute can arise if
the player disagree about how to apply the rules about result
determination. E.g., under Stone Scoring, if Black says "This empty
intersection is 1 point for Black." and if White says "That
intersection is 0 points.", then we have a dispute of how to apply
the scoring rules, which are part of the rules for result
determination.
***
All clear?
--
robert jasiek
Bill Spight
> > Suppose (after some sequence of bidding) I decide that we should play
> > the hand in three spades. However I believe that if I bid three spades,
> > my partner will be encouraged, and will bid four spades; and that this
> > contract will fail. Therefore, I bid two spades, an insufficient bid.
> > The Tournament Director is then called, and (if he thinks that my action
> > was merely the result of incompetence) he cites the rule which says that
> > I must increase this to a sufficient bid, and that my partner is
> > thereafter barred from the bidding. Thus I achieve the result that I
> > wanted.
>
> Not to be pedantic, but this is not exactly the rule in bridge, as I
> am sure you know well. In fact, making the bid sufficient in the same
> suit does not incur a penalty unless the original bid was conventional.
>
Nick is right. The director has explicit leeway to go beyond the letter
of the law when the penalty for an infraction is inappropriate. Using
the law to silence partner is a prime example.
See Law 84.E. at http://66.147.103.154/laws97/laws97nj/node13.html
Best regards,
Bill
Bill Spight
> This usage of the word "dispute" is a new invention by Nick. I.e. he
> uses this word with a new meaning.
>
What Nick said:
> In Go, the rules of play are very simple. The rules covering the
> "disputes settlement phase" (in any rule set) are more complex.
>
Nick, an accomplished native speaker of English, did not come up with a
new meaning of "dispute". He used the term with its normal meaning.
Best regards,
Bill
Robert Jasiek
> Nick, an accomplished native speaker of English, did not come up with a
> new meaning of "dispute". He used the term with its normal meaning.
OIC:) Thx! (Shall I ask for jb's dictionary?;( ) However, now being
encouraged to study mine, it says: "an argument or disagreement,
esp. an official one [...]". It is not an Oxford, it is a Cambridge
dictionary, though:)
Best regards,
--
robert jasiek
Nick Wedd
<Xbsp...@pacbell.net> writes
I confess that, although I am an "accomplished native speaker of
English" :-) , I am not fully familiar with the Laws of Bridge. I am
happy to accept what others tell me about bridge. I believe my point
was clear.
Andrew Walkingshaw
> esp. an official one [...]". It is not an Oxford, it is a Cambridge
> dictionary, though:)
Best sort.
- Andrew (MSci, Cantab.)
--
Andrew Walkingshaw | andrew...@lexical.org.uk
Bill Spight
> I
> consider that for a game to end (with successive passes) without the
> players being in agreement about the status of all the groups is an
> irregularity. There is nothing reprehensible about this happening, but
> it is reprehensible if, _after_ the successive passes, a player acts
> other than to try to resolve the status of the disputed groups in good
> faith and in accordance with the rules.
Hear, hear!
Best regards,
Bill