Deep Blue against Kasparov
Peeters Patrick
I believe Deep Blue hasn't chance angainst Kasparov when Kasparov plays
well. Anyway, Kasparov isn't the best player at the moment. The best is
Anand, then Karpov and Kasparov, and finally Deep Blue.
User923005
peeters:
>I believe Deep Blue hasn't chance angainst Kasparov when Kasparov plays
>well. Anyway, Kasparov isn't the best player at the moment. The best is
>Anand, then Karpov and Kasparov, and finally Deep Blue.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software? Algorithms? Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com
Komputer Korner
He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing, so that
IBM and he will never come to a rapprochement.
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read
all the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read at your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
User923005 wrote in message
<199803291714...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
User923005
KK:
>He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
>of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
>stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing, so that
>IBM and he will never come to a rapprochement.
than I do, I think the games themselves simply show what everyone knows about
computer chess. Brilliant people tend to make a series of good moves and once
in a while a brilliant stunner. You can see that in Kasparov's games. When he
makes a brilliant move, it makes him look much stronger than his opponent.
Computers, on the other hand tend to make very strong moves, without ever
making any blunders [except when there is a programming error]. But in a chess
match, how can you argue against the outcome of wins and losses? The
occasional brilliant moves did not win out against the "incredibly solid" play
of deep blue.
Now, I do believe that one of the top ranked players in the world might defeat
deep blue if it remained unmodified and had to play dozens of matches against
them in preparation. Very likely a weakness would be discovered. I think that
is largely the reason that IBM decomissioned deep blue. Those chess processors
have no value as anything else. Turning it into a database server was just an
excuse. Now that they have won the battle what could possibly be gained by
playing again? If they win again, big deal. If they lose, then the match
where they won could appear as an abberration. On the other hand, if the
programming team had time to work on the weaknesses uncovered, and had time to
prepare for a new opponent, the outcome would be the same. Except that I think
deep blue would crush an inferior player much, much worse than Kasparov. It
might even be able to win every game starting as black. Maybe not Anand and
Karpov, but probably many GM's. Of course, this is wild speculation without
any proof. Only my hunches.
Yehuda Levy
Are you feeling alright? Kasparov is best, better then Deep Blue. Give
Kasparov more reasoble considitions and he'll win 4-2 again. But Kasparov is
the best. Kramnik 2nd, Anand 3rd, and Karpov isn't even 4th.
> Peeters Patrick wrote in message <351E6A...@pandora.be>...
Rolf Tueschen
"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
>of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
>stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing,
KK, tone down. and come back out of the a__hole of R. Hyatt. Before
you make a clown out of yourself I recommend
for the lecture of Kasparov in Oxford.
Just to mention a few points of the scandal Kasparov saw in New York.
While he was controlled even on his way to the toilette to prevent
cheating (!) DEEP BLUE computer was NOT even to be *seen* by K's team.
Kasparov states that in the hotel in front of/ next to the one where
they played a second terminal was situated with several GMs around
(!!) ...
Kasparov further states that up to now (he said "six months after the
event") IBM didn't provide him with the output ...
Check the lecture for yourself and you will understand why The Fascist
Censor, Character Assassin and Liar Hyatt is completely wrong with his
attack against Garry of being a sore loser.
If I had to decide/choose between the Kasparov claim and Bob Hyatt's
offense for the side of the DEEP BLUE teamsters I'll take GK. He
presents so many arguments while Hyatt/IBM/Deep Blue teamsters spread
nothing but hot air and typical US American sports ballyhoo. The same
we can observe when it comes to the Super Bowl World Championship or
Olympic Games in the USA. I talk about happenings when the MONEY takes
over the concience of formerly honest men ...
Hyatt is a proven liar. (See the hamact against me and my critique
against nazi propaganda of a German neo-nazi.)
GM Benjamin is a proven liar. (He promissed publication of his results
and gamescores *after* the May event...)
etc.pp.
>so that IBM and he will never come to a rapprochement.
KK, think for yourself and stop brown-nosing Bob Hyatt.
>--
>- -
>Komputer Korner
>The inkompetent komputer
>If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
>Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read
>all the postings on r.g.c.c.
>Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt.
>Read at your own risk and
>assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
>User923005 wrote in message
><199803291714...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>peeters:
>>>I believe Deep Blue hasn't chance angainst Kasparov when Kasparov
>plays
>>>well. Anyway, Kasparov isn't the best player at the moment. The best
>is
>>>Anand, then Karpov and Kasparov, and finally Deep Blue.
Robert Hyatt
Peeters Patrick <peeters...@pandora.be> wrote:
: I believe Deep Blue hasn't chance angainst Kasparov when Kasparov plays
: well. Anyway, Kasparov isn't the best player at the moment. The best is
: Anand, then Karpov and Kasparov, and finally Deep Blue.
I disagree... Karpov is better than Anand, based on the last FIDE
WC. He plays far better than he's given credit for playing. Kasparov
I don't care for, and won't comment...
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Robert Hyatt
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
: He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
: of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
: IBM and he will never come to a rapprochement.
: --
: - -
: Komputer Korner
I don't see that in the games. I see a human that slugs it out with
a computer, and the computer shows it has gloves too. IE a couple of
endgames that lesser players would have lost against kasparov, in one
game GM's were announcing that DB was busted. But it kept finding
moves they didn't see, and drew... and we later found that it knew about
the draw all along...
Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude that
the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
Don Prohaska
Data Base? I don't know. I've heard several different versions.
Don P.
Don Getkey
In article <6fmfv5$4mt$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) writes:
>KK, think for yourself and stop brown-nosing Bob Hyatt.
It is no secret that Kasparov acted in a way that can only be described as
unsportsmen like. This, according to all who were present at the time, both
those who were pro-human, and those who were rooting for the machine.
I had a close friend at the scene in New York who (was a Kasparov supporter)
confirmed what was being reported, much to his own dismay.
As described by at least one eye witness I know, who liked GK, Kasparov is a
man without honor.
yours in chess,
Don
Coon Rapids MN USA
Robert Hyatt
Don Getkey <dong...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <6fmfv5$4mt$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,
: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) writes:
:>KK, think for yourself and stop brown-nosing Bob Hyatt.
KK, do what you like... I hate to jump in to this again, but the following
*really* needs to be said:
Rolf, you are a complete fool. Let's do just a bit of comparison here,
between you and me:
1. I have written several chess programs, you have written *zip*.
2. I have published several papers in computer chess, you have published
*zip* in computer chess.
3. I have participated in over 25 computer chess tournaments, you have
participated in *zip*.
4. I answer technical questions here all the time. You answer *zip*.
You only post your rediculous rantings and character attacks, without any
useful technical merit at all. zip... nada... you are worthless here.
5. I post technical data here and start discussions about various
computer chess activities from parallel searching, to search techniques,
to move ordering, to data structures. You post character assinations,
stupid remarks, lies, innuendoes, exaggerations, and do everything you can
to inflame others rather than to abide by the charter of this newsgroup.
In short, *we* aren't alike. We will *never* be alike. If I had the
power, I'd instantly cut your ability to post here... and then I'd live
with the thunderous applause that would evoke.
Why don't you grow up and either shut up or post about computer chess, and
leave the personal baggage and lies behind. As it is, you are only noise.
I totally ignore your posts thanks to the killfile facility. I can only
implore *everyone* to learn how to use this facility, and then use it to
excise Rolf from this group. We can then have meaningful discussions once
again, without driving other folks off.
The Bible says everything in life has a purpose. And I was taught in
school that "always and never" are unsafe words to use as everything has
an exception. I've found the exception to the "everything has a purpose"
now... in the case of "rolf"...
Please go away. Or talk about computer chess. One or the other. I can
tolerate either...
Robert Hyatt
Don Prohaska <proh...@ccis.com> wrote:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
:>
:> I don't see that in the games. I see a human that slugs it out with
:> a computer, and the computer shows it has gloves too. IE a couple of
:> endgames that lesser players would have lost against kasparov, in one
:> game GM's were announcing that DB was busted. But it kept finding
:> moves they didn't see, and drew... and we later found that it knew about
:> the draw all along...
:>
:> Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
:> I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude that
:> the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
:> --
:> Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
:> hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
:> (205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
:> (205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
: Data Base? I don't know. I've heard several different versions.
: Don P.
None of the endings it played were *database endings*. I don't know
how/when they probe, so it is possible their search was hitting the
databases on occasion, but no game ended in a 5 piece ending, and
contrary to wild rumors, they had *zero* six piece files. They are
simply too big...
However, with 12 pieces on the board, crafty will beat on the databases
heavily, so they may have hit quite a bit if they probe in the search.
I think they have "win/lose/draw" tables they use during the search,
and probe the real databases only at the root however... but I am not
sure...
Stuart Cracraft
You forgot to mention one thing else Bob. You won a very significant
prize from the ICCA for your work with Crafty in terms of your
openness with it to the general public (code + comments).
Komputer Korner
Bob, I am weary of this Deep Blue argument. The same argument can be
said for the Hiarcs Hergott match. Sadler believes that Hergott is the
better player and I agree. However the result was different. What is
vastly different between those 2 matches is that while Hergott played
his openings and was unlucky to lose the match, Kasparov did not play
his openings and in the 6th game simply gave the match away on a
finger fehler. It is well known that if you don't play your openings
you suffer in strength especially at the top levels. It is too bad
because now this argument will never be settled.
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read
all the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read at your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
Robert Hyatt wrote in message <6fmaqp$66h$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
>Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>: He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the
games
>: of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov
is
>: stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing, so that
>: IBM and he will never come to a rapprochement.
>
>: --
>: - -
>: Komputer Korner
>
>I don't see that in the games. I see a human that slugs it out with
>a computer, and the computer shows it has gloves too. IE a couple of
>endgames that lesser players would have lost against kasparov, in one
>game GM's were announcing that DB was busted. But it kept finding
>moves they didn't see, and drew... and we later found that it knew
about
>the draw all along...
>
>Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
>I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude
that
>the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
>
Kevin Heider
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>I don't see that in the games. I see a human that slugs it out with
>a computer, and the computer shows it has gloves too. IE a couple of
>endgames that lesser players would have lost against kasparov, in one
>game GM's were announcing that DB was busted. But it kept finding
>moves they didn't see, and drew... and we later found that it knew about
>the draw all along...
>
>Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
>I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude that
>the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
>
>--
>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
I agree with Robert. All of you guys in support of Kasparov are
looking at the games from the point of view of a human. Deep Blue is
a computer and takes a computers point of view. Kasparov and Deep
Blue are both great chess players, but their methods of playing are
completely different.
Kevin Heider
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Just to mention a few points of the scandal Kasparov saw in New York.
>While he was controlled even on his way to the toilette to prevent
>cheating (!) DEEP BLUE computer was NOT even to be *seen* by K's team.
>Kasparov states that in the hotel in front of/ next to the one where
>they played a second terminal was situated with several GMs around
>(!!) ...
Well I know how Kasparov treated Anand when Anand was WINNING the
world chess championship and Kasparov stormed out of the room with a
unsportman like attitude. Then Kasparov even the match by using a
line he prepared on a computer...
My point is ... Kasparov likes to make accuses and over reacts.
-- Kevin Heider
Rolf Tueschen
This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
=================================
"Alabama Bob", you confuse simply facts again.
What could I say more than that you are *on*-topic our
computer-chess-god. I never doubted your status although I can feel
that with all your past successes on super fast hardware for some
billions of US dollars -- the f i n a l story wasn't told yet!!
My point actually is a completely different one.
*You* rant *off*-topic as a *Fach-Idiot*.
What does that mean?
It does *n o t* mean the trivial fact that each expert has
ignorances in other fields. No, a Fach-Idiot is an impostor who
behaves *as if* he's also an expert in the off-topic fields.
I detected that right from the beginning when I entered the group
here. For a long time I was sure that you were far too smart not to
*joke* that way. But then when you violated simple logic in your
defense for DEEP BLUE/IBM/cheaters, when you wrote that I had lied and
insulted in *a l l* of my posts, and you gave only a single lame
example, which then develloped as a cheat, *then* I knew that you were
a fool or at least partly writing your posts while drinking heavy
doses of alcool...
Listen, Hyatt, I dont need to become a triple World Champion in
computer chess to be able to detect that you are a fool or writing
while drunken like nuts. A simple study of psychology enables me to
detect that. ;-)
So, in coming back to your lovely letter here below, let me state
this.
Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
censoring usenet members and and and so on.
Then I assure you that I had much less to write. Because I have never
claimed that I wanted to become your rival in the techniques of
computer chess. Simply because I am and will stay for many years to
come a real newbie compared with your knowledge.
But if you come on off-topics like 'gasolining deathrow inhabitants'
or if you support a 'German neo-nazi' against my profound critique,
and if you then censor and extinguish me, then you will be sorry for
your political idiocies and hamacts. Understood?
Liasten, "Alabama Bob", show me ONE SINGLE example here out of the
rgcc where I entered a sober computerchess topic with anything
off-topic -- _w i t h o u t_ former provokations #). Give me one
single example, and again 10US$ are flying to you. You wont be able to
find a single example.
That is why I call you not only a fascist censor but also a criminal
character assassin. Because you defame me without any reasons at all.
I comment only on off-topics coming from you personally or the other
experts of computer chess. Period.
Footnote #)
~~~~~~~~~
Look at the case of Ed Schroder. He's a businessman. Of course he
wants to propagate his PR here in usenet. But he no longer wants to
talk about his lies and crimes. Understandable.
But the victim of Ed Schroder's character assassinations, Rolf, simply
wont accept the tricky splitting behavior of sissy Ed. PR on usenet
and then quickly back to the asylum, the censored private club CCC on
ICD. Ed, Alabama Bob and many fascist censors, who supported a German
neo-nazi with his propaganda for concentration camps and signing in
the streets of the Germany of today, will have to apologize here on
rgcc and then we can concetrate on computer chess again.
Without excuses I will talk about crimes as long as needed. Period.
Rolf <The Pope of RGCC> Tueschen
--complete computerchess newbie--
=====================================================
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>--
>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
Rolf Tueschen
khe...@davis.com (Kevin Heider) wrote:
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
>>I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude that
>>the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
>>
>>--
>>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
>I agree with Robert. All of you guys in support of Kasparov are
>looking at the games from the point of view of a human. Deep Blue is
>a computer and takes a computers point of view. Kasparov and Deep
>Blue are both great chess players, but their methods of playing are
>completely different.
Sorry. I cant follow you.
Reason is:
As Kasparov stated the machine was NOT playing exclusively on its own!
You should read the data Kasparov gave in his famous Oxford lecture.
====>> www.chessbase.com (click on Kasparov in Oxford)
From game two on Kasparov claimed that there was something *fishy*
with the machine. Meaning that *h u m a n* influences happened.
Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
Kasparov with the output of the machine.
Guess why? :))
Greetings
Rolf Tueschen
Rolf Tueschen
What does that mean?
Footnote #)
~~~~~~~~~
=====================================================
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>--
>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
Enrique Irazoqui
Rolf Tueschen escribió en mensaje <6fo27t$l5c$2...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
>=================================
>aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
>censoring usenet members and and and so on.
Great recommendation to yourself, Rolfie!
Concentrate your worn out neuron on computer chess and leave aside all
off-topics. I am actually quoting you!!! Who would have told me...
Enrique
Enrique Irazoqui
Rolf Tueschen escribió en mensaje <6fo27l$l5c$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>khe...@davis.com (Kevin Heider) wrote:
>Sorry. I cant follow you.
You never did.
Read carefully, put your neuron to work and quietly try to grasp the text.
You won't get it anyway, but at list you'll be quiet.
Enrique
Robert Hyatt
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
: Bob, I am weary of this Deep Blue argument. The same argument can be
: said for the Hiarcs Hergott match. Sadler believes that Hergott is the
: better player and I agree. However the result was different. What is
: vastly different between those 2 matches is that while Hergott played
: his openings and was unlucky to lose the match, Kasparov did not play
: his openings and in the 6th game simply gave the match away on a
: finger fehler. It is well known that if you don't play your openings
: you suffer in strength especially at the top levels. It is too bad
: because now this argument will never be settled.
I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
something you can derive from the 6 games.
IE take those 6 games, change the player's names to XXXX and YYYY, and
give 'em to a GM, and he would *not* say "Hmmm... XXXX seems to have
altered his opening selection strategy for some reason and got into
territory he was not familiar with..." Because he would have *no* idea
of what XXXX normally played...
that was my point. The 6 games suggest DB is better. Outside information
can be used to dispute this, but not the games themselves...
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: khe...@davis.com (Kevin Heider) wrote:
:>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>>Based on the 6 games, all I can conclude is that Kasparov was beaten.
:>>I don't see how you can look at games played in a match, and conclude that
:>>the loser was better. Shouldn't he have won more of those games???
:>>
:>>--
:>>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
:>I agree with Robert. All of you guys in support of Kasparov are
:>looking at the games from the point of view of a human. Deep Blue is
:>a computer and takes a computers point of view. Kasparov and Deep
:>Blue are both great chess players, but their methods of playing are
:>completely different.
: Sorry. I cant follow you.
: Reason is:
: As Kasparov stated the machine was NOT playing exclusively on its own!
: You should read the data Kasparov gave in his famous Oxford lecture.
: ====>> www.chessbase.com (click on Kasparov in Oxford)
: From game two on Kasparov claimed that there was something *fishy*
: with the machine. Meaning that *h u m a n* influences happened.
: Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
: other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
: Kasparov with the output of the machine.
: Guess why? :))
There is *no* proof. Kasparov was given the output from the Program and
you have heard *nothing* since, because he saw that nothing fishy went on.
So please either produce evidence that shows something was wrong or else
stop the accusations.
And your last paragraph says it all, because you obviously *knew* that
he had been provided with the game logs before you made the statement.
*not* during the match, but he did get them... they have even been
seen (in part) in newspapers and on this newsgroup, although I have no
idea where *you* were when those discussions happened...
If you would remove your head from it's normal resting place, you would
see some of this stuff and not offer stupid comments..
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
: =================================
OK... let me point out the outright *lies* in the following
ranting, *just for the record*.
: "Alabama Bob", you confuse simply facts again.
: What could I say more than that you are *on*-topic our
: computer-chess-god. I never doubted your status although I can feel
: that with all your past successes on super fast hardware for some
: billions of US dollars -- the f i n a l story wasn't told yet!!
: My point actually is a completely different one.
: *You* rant *off*-topic as a *Fach-Idiot*.
Note that I don't "rant" off-topic, I *respond* to some off-topic
posts. *lie #1*. I have *not* started these off-topic things. You
are responsible for most.
: What does that mean?
: It does *n o t* mean the trivial fact that each expert has
: ignorances in other fields. No, a Fach-Idiot is an impostor who
: behaves *as if* he's also an expert in the off-topic fields.
: I detected that right from the beginning when I entered the group
: here. For a long time I was sure that you were far too smart not to
: *joke* that way. But then when you violated simple logic in your
: defense for DEEP BLUE/IBM/cheaters, when you wrote that I had lied and
: insulted in *a l l* of my posts, and you gave only a single lame
: example, which then develloped as a cheat, *then* I knew that you were
: a fool or at least partly writing your posts while drinking heavy
: doses of alcool...
Lie #2. I have *never* drank one can of beer, never drank one ounce of
any alcoholic beverage of any sort. I have *never* tried *any* drugs of
any sort. So please keep what you "know" to yourself, because your source
is screwed up. Up to 2 lies now, let's see what follows...
: Listen, Hyatt, I dont need to become a triple World Champion in
: computer chess to be able to detect that you are a fool or writing
: while drunken like nuts. A simple study of psychology enables me to
: detect that. ;-)
Repeat of lie #2. Up to three.
: So, in coming back to your lovely letter here below, let me state
: this.
: Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
: aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
: censoring usenet members and and and so on.
Implied lie #3. I don't start off-topic stuff. You do 90% of it
here. Maybe I'll call that lie #4, because you accuse me of doing
something that you start 90% of the time.
: Then I assure you that I had much less to write. Because I have never
: claimed that I wanted to become your rival in the techniques of
: computer chess. Simply because I am and will stay for many years to
: come a real newbie compared with your knowledge.
: But if you come on off-topics like 'gasolining deathrow inhabitants'
: or if you support a 'German neo-nazi' against my profound critique,
: and if you then censor and extinguish me, then you will be sorry for
: your political idiocies and hamacts. Understood?
I believe I said something to the effect of "executing convicted
murderers and converting their remains into gasoline so that we get some
small bit of good out of them." You make it sound like I have suggested
dousing live folks with gas and setting 'em on fire. Lie #5.
: Liasten, "Alabama Bob", show me ONE SINGLE example here out of the
: rgcc where I entered a sober computerchess topic with anything
: off-topic -- _w i t h o u t_ former provokations #). Give me one
: single example, and again 10US$ are flying to you. You wont be able to
: find a single example.
Rather than searching thru Deja, I'll read the rest of the day's news.
But it does seem that *this* discussion is a tad "off-topic"? 10 bucks
please...
: That is why I call you not only a fascist censor but also a criminal
: character assassin. Because you defame me without any reasons at all.
: I comment only on off-topics coming from you personally or the other
: experts of computer chess. Period.
Lie #6, in one post. You are saying you have *never* said anything off-
topic in a thread that started out on a technical discussion? If I had
the time, I'd find a dozen within the past week or two. But I'll simply
wait and point out the *next* time you jump into a technical discussion
and take it off-topic. You do it *every* time because in computer chess,
you couldn't find your butt with two handfuls of fishhooks. So in this
newsgroup, *anything you post* is going to be off-topic, because you don't
know anything that is *on topic*...
: Footnote #)
: ~~~~~~~~~
: Look at the case of Ed Schroder. He's a businessman. Of course he
: wants to propagate his PR here in usenet. But he no longer wants to
: talk about his lies and crimes. Understandable.
OK.. send me 20 bucks. Ed has nothing to do with *this* thread, so
there you go again. But of course you never add "off topic" comments
to any thread, right?
: But the victim of Ed Schroder's character assassinations, Rolf, simply
: wont accept the tricky splitting behavior of sissy Ed. PR on usenet
: and then quickly back to the asylum, the censored private club CCC on
: ICD. Ed, Alabama Bob and many fascist censors, who supported a German
: neo-nazi with his propaganda for concentration camps and signing in
: the streets of the Germany of today, will have to apologize here on
: rgcc and then we can concetrate on computer chess again.
I don't support Nazis. And Ed isn't one. If anyone has mental problems
like that it is yourself. Maybe you are making a self-diagnosis but then
projecting it onto Ed so you can live with yourself???
: Without excuses I will talk about crimes as long as needed. Period.
: Rolf <The Pope of RGCC> Tueschen
: --complete computerchess newbie--
and complete computer chess idiot.
Rolf Tueschen
"Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@mx3.redestb.es> wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen escribió en mensaje <6fo27t$l5c$2...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>>This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
>>=================================
>>Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
>>aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
>>censoring usenet members and and and so on.
>Great recommendation to yourself, Rolfie!
>Concentrate your worn out neuron on computer chess and leave aside all
>off-topics. I am actually quoting you!!! Who would have told me...
Unfortunately the *fascist* Censor Enrique provides us with a new
lie/cheat.
Proof:
I wrote the above and much more unfortunately snipped/deleted/censored
statements. To whom? To R. Hyatt. A proven Fach-Idiot who usually
jumps into off-topic fields Cant you understand that?
I never stated that I wanted to challenge one of the most famous
computer chess experts -- on his special field. But I have the right
to talk about Hyatt's own off-topic rantings in German nazi history.
Would you oppose me in that respect? Of course not. Wouldn't you?
I also have an inborn right to defend myself against Robert's
defamation that I had written in all of my posts lies and insults.
Listen, Enrique, I dont need your approval as a Fascist Censor. Please
stay out of this war or better help to make a fair peace by telling
your fascist friends about my message.
I'm a computer chess newbie, and I did not and I will not disturb any
on-topic correspondance between experts or anyone here in rgcc. But I
will attack sissy censors and cvharacter assassins like Ed Schroder
who try to make their PR here on rgcc in combination with a few
defamations against a noble critique of and then run away into the
Fascist censored private club CCC.
In the long run, Enrique, you will accept that your actions
a) founding CCC and
b) defaming my opposing of a German neo-nazi
will not succeed. You simply cant kill the truth.
Your Pope of RGCC
>Enrique
bruce moreland
>Great recommendation to yourself, Rolfie!
>
>Concentrate your worn out neuron on computer chess and leave aside all
>off-topics. I am actually quoting you!!! Who would have told me...
Why respond to the guy? It's what he wants. It doesn't bother him.
All it does is give him a nice reason to write another big nasty post,
which is what he hoped for when he wrote his first troll.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: "Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@mx3.redestb.es> wrote:
:>Rolf Tueschen escribió en mensaje <6fo27t$l5c$2...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
:>>This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
:>>=================================
:>>Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
:>>aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
:>>censoring usenet members and and and so on.
:>Great recommendation to yourself, Rolfie!
:>Concentrate your worn out neuron on computer chess and leave aside all
:>off-topics. I am actually quoting you!!! Who would have told me...
: Unfortunately the *fascist* Censor Enrique provides us with a new
: lie/cheat.
: Proof:
: I wrote the above and much more unfortunately snipped/deleted/censored
: statements. To whom? To R. Hyatt. A proven Fach-Idiot who usually
: jumps into off-topic fields Cant you understand that?
: I never stated that I wanted to challenge one of the most famous
: computer chess experts -- on his special field. But I have the right
: to talk about Hyatt's own off-topic rantings in German nazi history.
: Would you oppose me in that respect? Of course not. Wouldn't you?
Please produce my "off topic rantings in German nazi history." If you
please. This shall be called "lie #6" as I don't claim to be a Nazi
expert, and don't talk about Nazi things. That is *your* claim to
"fame".
As I promised, *every* lie you produce about me is going to get
flagged here, since you claim you never do this. Since I started this
policy this morning, you have posted twice, *both* contained *lies*.
Your serve, Rolf-the-Nazi-lover...
I'm personally a Nazi-hater.
: I also have an inborn right to defend myself against Robert's
: defamation that I had written in all of my posts lies and insults.
See above. "Robert" doesn't have to do anything, you are doing it all
to *yourself*... lie after lie after lie, with a few exaggerations and
such thrown in for good measure...
: Listen, Enrique, I dont need your approval as a Fascist Censor. Please
: stay out of this war or better help to make a fair peace by telling
: your fascist friends about my message.
: I'm a computer chess newbie, and I did not and I will not disturb any
: on-topic correspondance between experts or anyone here in rgcc. But I
: will attack sissy censors and cvharacter assassins like Ed Schroder
: who try to make their PR here on rgcc in combination with a few
: defamations against a noble critique of and then run away into the
: Fascist censored private club CCC.
You are not a computer chess newbie. You are a computer chess idiot.
Doing your best to wreck this newsgroup, and doing a fair job of that.
: In the long run, Enrique, you will accept that your actions
:
: a) founding CCC and
: b) defaming my opposing of a German neo-nazi
: will not succeed. You simply cant kill the truth.
Now, if you'd only start using the truth...
: Your Pope of RGCC
cat previous line | sed 's/Pope/Lying Pope/'
:>Enrique
Harri Pesonen
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> As Kasparov stated the machine was NOT playing exclusively on its own!
Kasparov was very childish. He was badly beaten and looking for excuses. He lost
his nerves during the match.
> From game two on Kasparov claimed that there was something *fishy*
> with the machine. Meaning that *h u m a n* influences happened.
Human interference would have made the whole meeting pointless.
> Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
> other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
> Kasparov with the output of the machine.
Where's the proof? Could you post the proof here?
--
Harri Pesonen
http://www.sci.fi/~fuerte/
You should not underestimate the power of thickness - Kaoru Iwamoto
Rolf Tueschen
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
>: This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
>: =================================
>OK... let me point out the outright *lies* in the following
>ranting, *just for the record*.
Should I really hold my breath?? :))
>: "Alabama Bob", you confuse simply facts again.
>: What could I say more than that you are *on*-topic our
>: computer-chess-god. I never doubted your status although I can feel
>: that with all your past successes on super fast hardware for some
>: billions of US dollars -- the f i n a l story wasn't told yet!!
>: My point actually is a completely different one.
>: *You* rant *off*-topic as a *Fach-Idiot*.
>Note that I don't "rant" off-topic, I *respond* to some off-topic
>posts. *lie #1*.
No. Your posts about my allegedly lying and insultzing in all of my
past posts was NOT responding, it was unnessessary defamation and
becuase *not true* well thougt ranting of a Fach-Idiot...
>I have *not* started these off-topic things.
Of course you did. Read above.
>You are responsible for most.
Not true again. I only responded on a neo-nazi's propaganda. I then
had to defend myself against the insults of a sissy businessman, the
Dutch Ed Schroder. A criminal character assassin.
>: What does that mean?
>: It does *n o t* mean the trivial fact that each expert has
>: ignorances in other fields. No, a Fach-Idiot is an impostor who
>: behaves *as if* he's also an expert in the off-topic fields.
>: I detected that right from the beginning when I entered the group
>: here. For a long time I was sure that you were far too smart not to
>: *joke* that way. But then when you violated simple logic in your
>: defense for DEEP BLUE/IBM/cheaters, when you wrote that I had lied and
>: insulted in *a l l* of my posts, and you gave only a single lame
>: example, which then develloped as a cheat, *then* I knew that you were
>: a fool or at least partly writing your posts while drinking heavy
>: doses of alcool...
>Lie #2. I have *never* drank one can of beer, never drank one ounce of
>any alcoholic beverage of any sort. I have *never* tried *any* drugs of
>any sort. So please keep what you "know" to yourself, because your source
>is screwed up. Up to 2 lies now, let's see what follows...
NONSENSE factor 2 power 212. Typical for an established Fach-Idiot.
I wrote clear and wise thoughts. Either you're a fool or you drink too
much ...
What does a typical Fach-Idiot do??
He starts counting: I did never drank coke. No beer. No whiskey. No
milk. No drugs at all ...
What a pity, Bobby. You had a choice. You made the decision ...
Then you are a *proven fool*. No more dealing and wheeling. :))
Let's not go deeper into the fool's rantings.
I repeat my peace offer. Bob, dont waste your time in off-topic
rantings. You are too precisious in computer chess. We need you there.
Give your honest apologies for your fasle attacks against me.
Then I can concentrate on the rest of the character assassins and
fascist censors.
Yours truly newbie and Pope of RGCC
[snipped]
Don Getkey
In article <6foita$end$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) writes:
>Yours truly newbie and Pope of RGCC
Again with the religion!? Sheese, will you ever stop imposing your misguided
religious views in this secular forum?
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Let's not go deeper into the fool's rantings.
: I repeat my peace offer. Bob, dont waste your time in off-topic
: rantings. You are too precisious in computer chess. We need you there.
: Give your honest apologies for your fasle attacks against me.
: Then I can concentrate on the rest of the character assassins and
: fascist censors.
Not going to happen. You asked for examples of lies, I have already
supplied *six* from today's posts by you. Five in the above post that
you so cleverly snipped away so you could pretend they didn't exist,
which is exactly what I'd expect from someone of your "class".
no appologies from me to you, because you don't deserve 'em.. You
are a liar. You have been a liar. You will probably always be a
liar. Liars don't get appologies from me for lies *they* told.
You don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen...
"liar"...
Rolf Tueschen
Little preface for the cyber cops.
I had to write this post because Bob Hyatt, the fascist censor of CCC
on the commercial US server ICD chess of Tim Mirabile and Steve
Schwartz, denied that he did invent all the examples for my "lies"...
Here I refuse with all necessary strenth ALL examples as a cheat and
lie itself.
Pope R.
===============================0
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
>: Let's not go deeper into the fool's rantings.
>: I repeat my peace offer. Bob, dont waste your time in off-topic
>: rantings. You are too precisious in computer chess. We need you there.
>: Give your honest apologies for your fasle attacks against me.
>: Then I can concentrate on the rest of the character assassins and
>: fascist censors.
>Not going to happen. You asked for examples of lies, I have already
>supplied *six* from today's posts by you. Five in the above post that
>you so cleverly snipped away so you could pretend they didn't exist,
>which is exactly what I'd expect from someone of your "class".
Wait a minute you fascist censor and character assassin. "You supplied
*six*. I should have snipped 5", ok? Why dont you talk about the
*first* example?? Because that was the one I answered to and explained
in detail why your first example was a cheat again?
Listen, off-topic numskull, I will quickly discuss the resting five
examples. And I'm interested if you have the guts to respond.
===============
Here comes a quote of your complete points = "lies" I should have
written. Although I have technical language problems I will discuss
and refute all of them...
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
>: This is an answer on a post of R. Hyatt.
>: =================================
>OK... let me point out the outright *lies* in the following
>ranting, *just for the record*.
>: "Alabama Bob", you confuse simply facts again.
>: What could I say more than that you are *on*-topic our
>: computer-chess-god. I never doubted your status although I can feel
>: that with all your past successes on super fast hardware for some
>: billions of US dollars -- the f i n a l story wasn't told yet!!
>: My point actually is a completely different one.
>: *You* rant *off*-topic as a *Fach-Idiot*.
>Note that I don't "rant" off-topic, I *respond* to some off-topic
>posts. *lie #1*. I have *not* started these off-topic things. You
>are responsible for most.
See the other post too. Of course you rant in the posts I referred to.
But I wanted to state that your ranting was even worse through your
status as off-topic Fach-Idiot. That was the meaning of my statement.
Not the scientifical proof that you just *ranted*. No, my claim is far
deeper that you rant as a Fach-Idiot without a clue what's going on in
the mentioned question ...
Of course *you* started tht part of the off-topic scandal. Why? How?
let's remember how it all begun.
A German neo-nazi claimed that he wanted to throw people into
concetration camps. That he wanted to sign others in the streets of
Germany.
Then came my critique/opposition.
Then came Schroder's insulting me as a *pig* for my critique of the
neo-nazi.
Then came the ridiculous court trial and Whittington's 'idea'
"Teuschen lay down and die..".
Then came the CCC creation. A founder group around the above mentioned
neo-nazi created that censored club.
And months later, after my expulsion out of CCC for no reasons, Hyatt
came here in rgcc with the 'idea' that I had to stop all mentioning of
the original scandal, the neo-nazi's propaganda, the Schroder insult
and the death threats and phantasies ...
So, will you please listen, you naughty boy, Bob. It was clearly you
who started the new campain -- of course in a way a continuation of
the former hamasct but with a new spirit -- against me. You simply
have to differentiate the different levels. Otherwise you cant
understand. It's interesting that I invite a Fach-Idiot to "undertand"
something ... But I will always follow my road of honesty. Perhaps
your son or even your wife (!) read this here and explain the content
to you. Perhaps it's in vain my dreaming ...
>: What does that mean?
>: It does *n o t* mean the trivial fact that each expert has
>: ignorances in other fields. No, a Fach-Idiot is an impostor who
>: behaves *as if* he's also an expert in the off-topic fields.
>: I detected that right from the beginning when I entered the group
>: here. For a long time I was sure that you were far too smart not to
>: *joke* that way. But then when you violated simple logic in your
>: defense for DEEP BLUE/IBM/cheaters, when you wrote that I had lied and
>: insulted in *a l l* of my posts, and you gave only a single lame
>: example, which then develloped as a cheat, *then* I knew that you were
>: a fool or at least partly writing your posts while drinking heavy
>: doses of alcool...
>Lie #2. I have *never* drank one can of beer, never drank one ounce of
>any alcoholic beverage of any sort. I have *never* tried *any* drugs of
>any sort. So please keep what you "know" to yourself, because your source
>is screwed up. Up to 2 lies now, let's see what follows...
I already explained the background of your second error here. I wrote
about an alternative cause. You refused one of the two, NOT realizing
that then the second reason was still there... Give it up Bobby, your
off-topic intelligence is way too low to grasp such beautiful
juridical reasoning.
>: Listen, Hyatt, I dont need to become a triple World Champion in
>: computer chess to be able to detect that you are a fool or writing
>: while drunken like nuts. A simple study of psychology enables me to
>: detect that. ;-)
>Repeat of lie #2. Up to three.
Read above. A repeat of your second error ...
>: So, in coming back to your lovely letter here below, let me state
>: this.
>: Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
>: aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
>: censoring usenet members and and and so on.
>Implied lie #3. I don't start off-topic stuff. You do 90% of it
>here. Maybe I'll call that lie #4, because you accuse me of doing
>something that you start 90% of the time.
I call that error #4.
Let's make a new contest. Show me one single example where I startesd
an off-topic critique out of the blue, right? 100 US $ for the fascist
censor and character assassin Hyatty for each example. Right?
>: Then I assure you that I had much less to write. Because I have never
>: claimed that I wanted to become your rival in the techniques of
>: computer chess. Simply because I am and will stay for many years to
>: come a real newbie compared with your knowledge.
>: But if you come on off-topics like 'gasolining deathrow inhabitants'
>: or if you support a 'German neo-nazi' against my profound critique,
>: and if you then censor and extinguish me, then you will be sorry for
>: your political idiocies and hamacts. Understood?
>I believe I said something to the effect of "executing convicted
>murderers and converting their remains into gasoline so that we get some
>small bit of good out of them." You make it sound like I have suggested
>dousing live folks with gas and setting 'em on fire. Lie #5.
Hey, stuuupid. Won't you play who's the emptiest numskull again?
I already explained that error you made here. I always used
"gasolining" as the transformation of the chemical ingredients of the
bodies into gasoline. Got it now, Fach_Idiot? :)
>: Liasten, "Alabama Bob", show me ONE SINGLE example here out of the
>: rgcc where I entered a sober computerchess topic with anything
>: off-topic -- _w i t h o u t_ former provokations #). Give me one
>: single example, and again 10US$ are flying to you. You wont be able to
>: find a single example.
>Rather than searching thru Deja, I'll read the rest of the day's news.
>But it does seem that *this* discussion is a tad "off-topic"? 10 bucks
>please...
But I didn't start it, no? :) Error number??
>: That is why I call you not only a fascist censor but also a criminal
>: character assassin. Because you defame me without any reasons at all.
>: I comment only on off-topics coming from you personally or the other
>: experts of computer chess. Period.
>Lie #6, in one post. You are saying you have *never* said anything off-
>topic in a thread that started out on a technical discussion?
Numskull/Fach-Idiot please try to read first my posts before you're
running around in amok again.
I said that I did never enter an *on*-topic topic/thread with an
*off*-topic post/statement that was *NOT* formerly provokated by
others, mainly the experts of computerchess. Right??!
<But also here we can make it quite easy for you. 100 US $ for each
example where I jumped in such a thread without a cause. Got it?
>If I had
>the time, I'd find a dozen within the past week or two. But I'll simply
>wait and point out the *next* time you jump into a technical discussion
>and take it off-topic. You do it *every* time because in computer chess,
>you couldn't find your butt with two handfuls of fishhooks. So in this
>newsgroup, *anything you post* is going to be off-topic, because you don't
>know anything that is *on topic*...
Thanks for your warm welcome of a newbie in your circles... Please
continue to behave like a jackass. Listen, in my education there once
was the point of decency. Did you ever hear about that notion? How
boring to read you always repeating that you were *more* experienced
than a newbie in your special field. How boring and vain ...
Kitchen psychologists would immediately assume that the length of your
cock is too small and that you had to act therefore like a frigging
impostor in your main field ... How boooring. ;-)
>: Footnote #)
>: ~~~~~~~~~
>: Look at the case of Ed Schroder. He's a businessman. Of course he
>: wants to propagate his PR here in usenet. But he no longer wants to
>: talk about his lies and crimes. Understandable.
>OK.. send me 20 bucks. Ed has nothing to do with *this* thread, so
>there you go again.
Your c___ is too small and now you really run out of control. We call
that uncontrolled "amoking".
What a nonsense to see you losing your panties again.
I wanted to give an example for a formerly provoked *off*-topic
comment. And I took Ed Schroder the criminal character assassin as
example. Now you state that I entered Ed Schroder completely out of
context. But Ed Schroder is the living source for 90 % of my
off-topics here in rgcc.... ;-)
How could you criticise my mentioning this criminal? Without his
insults and sueing threats we didn't have the actual debate ...!
So, sorry, no 20 bucks ...
>But of course you never add "off topic" comments
>to any thread, right?
Right. You Fach-Idiot. I wrote that I didn't do that unprovokated. Got
it now?
>: But the victim of Ed Schroder's character assassinations, Rolf, simply
>: wont accept the tricky splitting behavior of sissy Ed. PR on usenet
>: and then quickly back to the asylum, the censored private club CCC on
>: ICD. Ed, Alabama Bob and many fascist censors, who supported a German
>: neo-nazi with his propaganda for concentration camps and signing in
>: the streets of the Germany of today, will have to apologize here on
>: rgcc and then we can concetrate on computer chess again.
>I don't support Nazis.
No, you only support a German neo-nazi...
> And Ed isn't one.
I did never say that he was one. I always differentiated with a
neo-nazi and the people that supported him. Period.
>If anyone has mental problems
>like that it is yourself. Maybe you are making a self-diagnosis but then
>projecting it onto Ed so you can live with yourself???
What a nonsense. Try to work out that theory with your psychiatrist,
Bob. That's pure phantasy if you assume that I work like that ...
>: Without excuses I will talk about crimes as long as needed. Period.
>: Rolf <The Pope of RGCC> Tueschen
>: --complete computerchess newbie--
>and complete computer chess idiot.
Listen. I were an idiot in computerchess if I did pretend that I were
an expert. But I always told you that I was a newbie.
You of course tell everybody that you are an expert in the history of
German neo-nazis. To give just one example. In reality however you're
a complete Fach-Idiot. The only field where you are clever enough that
is computer chess. And I told you that possibly your two World titles
were due to superior hardware. Whereas ED Schroder always had the
better software. So, for me it's not at all decided who's the best
programmer of all time ----- ;;;-)))
>--
>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
>hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
>(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
>(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
>no appologies from me to you, because you don't deserve 'em.. You
>are a liar. You have been a liar. You will probably always be a
>liar. Liars don't get appologies from me for lies *they* told.
>You don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen...
>"liar"...
Thanks for the "...". You know too good that The Pope is unable to lie
here. Why should he? Without any secondary bad motivation like you
have it with your manyfold duties as a proxy for the IBM teamsters ...
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote:
: Wait a minute you fascist censor and character assassin. "You supplied
: *six*. I should have snipped 5", ok? Why dont you talk about the
: *first* example?? Because that was the one I answered to and explained
: in detail why your first example was a cheat again?
Lie #7 and counting. I am *not* a "fascist" by any definition I can
find. That's *your* stupidity talking once again... Keep 'em
coming, although I know I'll never see my 10 bucks per lie... But
I'll keep counting them...
: Listen, off-topic numskull, I will quickly discuss the resting five
: examples. And I'm interested if you have the guts to respond.
I have guts you can't even *imagine*...
: ===============
No one made any such claim. Lie #8. Your debt is up to
80 bucks and climbing. And notice that *not* one post of yours today
was devoid of lies, as I have said...
: Then came my critique/opposition.
: Then came Schroder's insulting me as a *pig* for my critique of the
: neo-nazi.
: Then came the ridiculous court trial and Whittington's 'idea'
: "Teuschen lay down and die..".
: Then came the CCC creation. A founder group around the above mentioned
: neo-nazi created that censored club.
: And months later, after my expulsion out of CCC for no reasons, Hyatt
: came here in rgcc with the 'idea' that I had to stop all mentioning of
: the original scandal, the neo-nazi's propaganda, the Schroder insult
: and the death threats and phantasies ...
Which still stands. Of course, I'm sure you will continue to carp
for years.
: So, will you please listen, you naughty boy, Bob. It was clearly you
: who started the new campain -- of course in a way a continuation of
: the former hamasct but with a new spirit -- against me. You simply
: have to differentiate the different levels. Otherwise you cant
: understand. It's interesting that I invite a Fach-Idiot to "undertand"
: something ... But I will always follow my road of honesty. Perhaps
: your son or even your wife (!) read this here and explain the content
: to you. Perhaps it's in vain my dreaming ...
Again you lie, I'm about to lose count. I *responded* to yet
another post about Ed, from your filthy mouth/mind... Check the
post. You won't find the *first* post in the thread by *me*...
*liar*...
:>: What does that mean?
:>: It does *n o t* mean the trivial fact that each expert has
:>: ignorances in other fields. No, a Fach-Idiot is an impostor who
:>: behaves *as if* he's also an expert in the off-topic fields.
:>: I detected that right from the beginning when I entered the group
:>: here. For a long time I was sure that you were far too smart not to
:>: *joke* that way. But then when you violated simple logic in your
:>: defense for DEEP BLUE/IBM/cheaters, when you wrote that I had lied and
:>: insulted in *a l l* of my posts, and you gave only a single lame
:>: example, which then develloped as a cheat, *then* I knew that you were
:>: a fool or at least partly writing your posts while drinking heavy
:>: doses of alcool...
:>Lie #2. I have *never* drank one can of beer, never drank one ounce of
:>any alcoholic beverage of any sort. I have *never* tried *any* drugs of
:>any sort. So please keep what you "know" to yourself, because your source
:>is screwed up. Up to 2 lies now, let's see what follows...
: I already explained the background of your second error here. I wrote
: about an alternative cause. You refused one of the two, NOT realizing
: that then the second reason was still there... Give it up Bobby, your
: off-topic intelligence is way too low to grasp such beautiful
: juridical reasoning.
You explained *nothing*. You said in two different places that I must
have been drunk. Since I don't drink, *period*, and can prove that
beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are a *liar*.
:>: Listen, Hyatt, I dont need to become a triple World Champion in
:>: computer chess to be able to detect that you are a fool or writing
:>: while drunken like nuts. A simple study of psychology enables me to
:>: detect that. ;-)
:>Repeat of lie #2. Up to three.
: Read above. A repeat of your second error ...
A repeat of your bullshit. you say I was drunk. I say you are a
stupid liar. I can prove I don't drink. Therefore I can prove you
are a liar...
QED
:>: So, in coming back to your lovely letter here below, let me state
:>: this.
:>: Please do concentrate on the technical stuff of computer chess. Leave
:>: aside all off-topics such as politics, techniques of cheating,
:>: censoring usenet members and and and so on.
:>Implied lie #3. I don't start off-topic stuff. You do 90% of it
:>here. Maybe I'll call that lie #4, because you accuse me of doing
:>something that you start 90% of the time.
: I call that error #4.
: Let's make a new contest. Show me one single example where I startesd
: an off-topic critique out of the blue, right? 100 US $ for the fascist
: censor and character assassin Hyatty for each example. Right?
Deal... But let's up the ante... I will find a first post in
a thread with your name on it, and you either give me the 100 bucks
or I'll see if I can get enough contributors here to allow me to pay you
a visit and take it out of your a** *personally*. Still want to make this
offer?
:>: Then I assure you that I had much less to write. Because I have never
:>: claimed that I wanted to become your rival in the techniques of
:>: computer chess. Simply because I am and will stay for many years to
:>: come a real newbie compared with your knowledge.
:>: But if you come on off-topics like 'gasolining deathrow inhabitants'
:>: or if you support a 'German neo-nazi' against my profound critique,
:>: and if you then censor and extinguish me, then you will be sorry for
:>: your political idiocies and hamacts. Understood?
:>I believe I said something to the effect of "executing convicted
:>murderers and converting their remains into gasoline so that we get some
:>small bit of good out of them." You make it sound like I have suggested
:>dousing live folks with gas and setting 'em on fire. Lie #5.
: Hey, stuuupid. Won't you play who's the emptiest numskull again?
: I already explained that error you made here. I always used
: "gasolining" as the transformation of the chemical ingredients of the
: bodies into gasoline. Got it now, Fach_Idiot? :)
Then get your quote right... fasc-moron...
...
:>: Liasten, "Alabama Bob", show me ONE SINGLE example here out of the
:>: rgcc where I entered a sober computerchess topic with anything
:>: off-topic -- _w i t h o u t_ former provokations #). Give me one
:>: single example, and again 10US$ are flying to you. You wont be able to
:>: find a single example.
As I said, done, with the above qualification... more once I visit
Deja...
:>Rather than searching thru Deja, I'll read the rest of the day's news.
:>But it does seem that *this* discussion is a tad "off-topic"? 10 bucks
:>please...
: But I didn't start it, no? :) Error number??
Please check back to the original subject. then find your first
puke into the thread... and tell me that was "on topic"...
:>: That is why I call you not only a fascist censor but also a criminal
:>: character assassin. Because you defame me without any reasons at all.
:>: I comment only on off-topics coming from you personally or the other
:>: experts of computer chess. Period.
:>Lie #6, in one post. You are saying you have *never* said anything off-
:>topic in a thread that started out on a technical discussion?
: Numskull/Fach-Idiot please try to read first my posts before you're
: running around in amok again.
: I said that I did never enter an *on*-topic topic/thread with an
: *off*-topic post/statement that was *NOT* formerly provokated by
: others, mainly the experts of computerchess. Right??!
nope... you are sick...
: <But also here we can make it quite easy for you. 100 US $ for each
: example where I jumped in such a thread without a cause. Got it?
You are going to eat that request, *soon*...
:>If I had
:>the time, I'd find a dozen within the past week or two. But I'll simply
:>wait and point out the *next* time you jump into a technical discussion
:>and take it off-topic. You do it *every* time because in computer chess,
:>you couldn't find your butt with two handfuls of fishhooks. So in this
:>newsgroup, *anything you post* is going to be off-topic, because you don't
:>know anything that is *on topic*...
: Thanks for your warm welcome of a newbie in your circles... Please
: continue to behave like a jackass. Listen, in my education there once
: was the point of decency. Did you ever hear about that notion? How
: boring to read you always repeating that you were *more* experienced
: than a newbie in your special field. How boring and vain ...
your education is suspect. If you actually have a degree, I
suspect that there are folks that are really wondering where they
went wrong...
: Kitchen psychologists would immediately assume that the length of your
: cock is too small and that you had to act therefore like a frigging
: impostor in your main field ... How boooring. ;-)
You seem to also have a fixation on body parts that most men don't...
unless you are "odd"...
:>: Footnote #)
:>: ~~~~~~~~~
:>: Look at the case of Ed Schroder. He's a businessman. Of course he
:>: wants to propagate his PR here in usenet. But he no longer wants to
:>: talk about his lies and crimes. Understandable.
:>OK.. send me 20 bucks. Ed has nothing to do with *this* thread, so
:>there you go again.
: Your c___ is too small and now you really run out of control. We call
: that uncontrolled "amoking".
: What a nonsense to see you losing your panties again.
I will post an example of your jumping in unwanted. I will then
promptly add you back to my kill-file. May you rot there for the rest
of time...
: I wanted to give an example for a formerly provoked *off*-topic
Robert Hyatt
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
As I promised, here's the justification for calling Rolf the Jackass
a total liar, and also justification for asking for my 100 buck reward
he promised.
Here's the discussion about kasparov vs deep blue from a few days ago,
where we were discussing what could be learned from nothing but the six
games that were played last year.
Look at what our resident head-up-his-ass madman adds to the discussion:
(note, this is *obviously* right on topic, rolf?)
---"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
---
--->He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
--->of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
--->stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing,
---
---KK, tone down. and come back out of the a__hole of R. Hyatt. Before
---you make a clown out of yourself I recommend
---
--- www.chessbase.com
---
What does that have to do with the discussion about Kasparov and the
six games we wer talking about?
Btw, if you go to deja and search for posts by rolf, with the keyword
"nazi" and limit it to jan 1 of this year, you only get 1300 hits. I'm
sure there were 1300 places where "nazi" was dead on topic, right rolf?
I'll watch my mail for the hundred bucks. but I won't respond to you any
more, unless I decide to un-killfile you in a few months to see if you have
gotten any help. Until then, rot in your hole.
To quote "fortune -o" from a few weeks ago, I'm sure there are lots of
people that try to see things from your perspective, except that they
have trouble getting their heads that far up their asses...
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from hy...@cis.uab.edu
> : I believe Deep Blue hasn't chance angainst Kasparov when Kasparov plays
> : well. Anyway, Kasparov isn't the best player at the moment. The best is
> : Anand, then Karpov and Kasparov, and finally Deep Blue.
>
> I disagree... Karpov is better than Anand, based on the last FIDE
> WC. He plays far better than he's given credit for playing.
Ha! Let Karpov play the whole tournament like Anand did, without any
privileges. Then we'll see if he is really better.
Harald Faber
janucz Wyborcza
Why to talk about nazi fascist and yell at each uther?
I for to come learn program chess good. No for wach yell.
Please sorry bad english. I read for to program chess. No
write for yell but pepole make me mad. Please no yell me.
Please write for chess.
/* Janucz */
On 30 Mar 1998 23:35:08 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
Rolf Tueschen
jan...@hotmail.com (janucz Wyborcza) wrote:
>Why to talk about nazi fascist and yell at each uther?
>I for to come learn program chess good. No for wach yell.
>Please sorry bad english. I read for to program chess. No
>write for yell but pepole make me mad. Please no yell me.
>Please write for chess.
>/* Janucz */
Let me give a short answer and call you welcome in this group.
Hello there!
Now to your question or calling ...
You read people yelling at each other. And you stated that you didn't
want to read yells but exchanges about computer chess programming.
You are quite right here in RGCC then. Hello again. We love you!
But please try to learn to understand the meaning of a free usenet.
1.
This is a free usenet group about computer chess.
2.
If however experts of computer chess, like the German neo-nazi we have
here in RGCC, write posts about throwing people he disliked into new
GERMAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS and if he again wanted to SIGN people he
disliked when they walked in the streets of today's Germany --------
*then* people like me, another German, but opponent of neo-nazis,
should be allowed to criticise such nazi propaganda.
3.
I'm sure that you, dear Janucz, will allow the free exchange of such
critiques of nazi stuff.
I thank you for your tolerance in the name of hundreds of this
newsgroup in my official function as the elected Earthly Pope of RGCC.
Your Pope Rodolpherus XXIII.
(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
Rolf Tueschen
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>As I promised, here's the justification for calling Rolf the Jackass
>a total liar, and also justification for asking for my 100 buck reward
>he promised.
>Here's the discussion about kasparov vs deep blue from a few days ago,
>where we were discussing what could be learned from nothing but the six
>games that were played last year.
I hold my breath. Will the fascist censor and gasoliner of Deathrow
inhabotants enlighten us with exact examples?
>Look at what our resident head-up-his-ass madman adds to the discussion:
>(note, this is *obviously* right on topic, rolf?)
I know already for sure that the example that will come right now IS
on-topic!
>---"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>---
>--->He is right about the placing of Deeper Blue. If you look at the games
>--->of the match instead of the end result, you will see that Kasparov is
>--->stronger. Too bad he acted like such an imbecile at losing,
>---
>---KK, tone down. and come back out of the a__hole of R. Hyatt. Before
>---you make a clown out of yourself I recommend
>---
>--- www.chessbase.com
>---
>What does that have to do with the discussion about Kasparov and the
>six games we wer talking about?
Are you goin' crazy again, Robbie?
I give the hint of a brand new link to the new publication of
ChessBase on their ChessBase Express CDrom I got three days ago and I
now saw mentioned on their HomePage chessbase.com.
If the original lecture of G. Kasparov in Oxford about his games in
New York last May, if this is NOT on-topic stuff, then I dont know
what should be on-topic.
I mean, your usual cowboy cheats about "honest scientists" Hsu,
Campbell and so on and your defamations of Kasparov as sore loser is
pure 'public relations' from a proxy of IBMteamsters. Period.
But for me a lecture from Kasparov is *first-hand* data of one of the
participants, right?!
So, buddy, I might be not as knowledged in computer chess and the
cheating there like you are but I'm smart enough to give the group a
hint for a link of most interesting data. That they then could read
and check for themselves. That you, the proxy of the cheaters, dont
like that, is really no surprise.
>Btw, if you go to deja and search for posts by rolf, with the keyword
>"nazi" and limit it to jan 1 of this year, you only get 1300 hits. I'm
>sure there were 1300 places where "nazi" was dead on topic, right rolf?
Stop making a clown out of yourself, Bob.
It was already shown by others, also Chris W., that the mere machine
based search for the "nazi" word doesn't provide you with the
necessary answer in what way I have used the notion. Most of the time
I used it in connection with "-like" or "neo-". But what did you
expect? I was defamed by Schroder and his party soldiers. And I had to
defend myself. Of course, talking about Schroder, the supporter of a
German neo-"nazi", needs by force mentioning the notion "nazi",
right?!
But what does it help to teach a dumb fascist censor and *off*-topic
Fach-Idiot?
>I'll watch my mail for the hundred bucks.
must be joking...
>but I won't respond to you any
>more, unless I decide to un-killfile you in a few months to see if you have
>gotten any help. Until then, rot in your hole.
>To quote "fortune -o" from a few weeks ago, I'm sure there are lots of
>people that try to see things from your perspective, except that they
>have trouble getting their heads that far up their asses...
Great style from a two time World Champion in computer chess. Great
style from a USA university professor ...
Correction: Great style from a fascist censor and inhuman gasoliner.
bruce moreland
On 30 Mar 1998 16:59:57 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Please produce my "off topic rantings in German nazi history." If you
>please. This shall be called "lie #6" as I don't claim to be a Nazi
>expert, and don't talk about Nazi things. That is *your* claim to
>"fame".
Bob.
bruce
bruce moreland
On 30 Mar 1998 15:00:08 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
>played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
>you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
>made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
>something you can derive from the 6 games.
I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those games.
Kasparov was under such incredible strain that it isn't clear how much
of him was really present for the games.
We didn't get to see much of Deep Blue either.
I think anyone who tries to insert Deep Blue at some pont in the FIDE
list is making an incredible wild guess.
The best way to know for sure would be to have it show up at many
strong tournaments and play against whoever it has to play against.
If it wants to be remembered as a chess player list, let it be a chess
player.
IBM realized they had created the best possible public impression from
their point of view (the impression that DB is better than Kasparov),
and rather than put this impression at risk they broke the machine
down.
This is a terrible way to operate.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
: On 30 Mar 1998 15:00:08 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
:>played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
:>you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
:>made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
:>something you can derive from the 6 games.
: I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those games.
You are possibly right, although if you only look at the games, and
know *nothing* about anything that went on, I'm hard pressed to say
that DB was the "weaker" player, which was how this discussion started
off...
: Kasparov was under such incredible strain that it isn't clear how much
: of him was really present for the games.
I agree...
: We didn't get to see much of Deep Blue either.
I probably saw more than I wanted to... :)
: I think anyone who tries to insert Deep Blue at some pont in the FIDE
: list is making an incredible wild guess.
exactly. It's amazing just how often someone wants to compute a FIDE
rating, using a formula of some sort that has *no* FIDE ratings included,
which makes it a wild guess at best...
: The best way to know for sure would be to have it show up at many
: strong tournaments and play against whoever it has to play against.
: If it wants to be remembered as a chess player list, let it be a chess
: player.
: IBM realized they had created the best possible public impression from
: their point of view (the impression that DB is better than Kasparov),
: and rather than put this impression at risk they broke the machine
: down.
I don't think it's gone, as I mentioned before. They never had the
luxury of keeping a full-house SP2 in the lab to work on DB all the
time, which is why they built "junior"... If the right circumstance
popped up, the only delay to getting "senior" back up would be the
time required to move in a new SP2 with 16 processors.
Whether they will want to do that is another issue. But once the
shine from the Kasparov match wears off, marketing forces might well
demand that it be rolled out again for another shot in the arm...
: This is a terrible way to operate.
It's what *always* happens when "bean counters" get into the loop.
You and I would do one thing, but a bean counter that is looking for
maximal marketing advantage would say we were nuts... :)
: bruce
Rolf Tueschen
bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland) wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:15:51 +0200, "Enrique Irazoqui"
><en...@mx3.redestb.es> wrote:
>>Great recommendation to yourself, Rolfie!
>>
>>Concentrate your worn out neuron on computer chess and leave aside all
>>off-topics. I am actually quoting you!!! Who would have told me...
>Why respond to the guy? It's what he wants. It doesn't bother him.
>All it does is give him a nice reason to write another big nasty post,
>which is what he hoped for when he wrote his first troll.
>bruce
Notice this, proxy.
You will be held responsible for humiliating a cripple at the Blitz
tournament in Paris 1997.
You wanted to force him to walk between rounds with display and
machine under his arms from table to table ...
You won't lose that stinking odeur.
Fat fascist censor and humiliator!
We'll see if it's only a troll ...
bruce moreland
On 31 Mar 1998 18:43:36 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Whether they will want to do that is another issue. But once the
>shine from the Kasparov match wears off, marketing forces might well
>demand that it be rolled out again for another shot in the arm...
I don't think so. I think it's gone forever, for the simple reason
that they accidentally climbed Everest when they were out for their
afternoon walk. Everything they do after that will be anti-climactic.
DB won't play Kasparov, another person, or another computer, ever
again, because they might lose and spoil the public's impression that
they are the best player on earth. I have seen in print (newspaper
column), and heard on the radio (talk show), the comment that a
computer is the best player on earth. This likely mistaken impression
works in the favor of IBM. If the public gets the impression that you
are better than you really are, why correct them?
Kasparov won't play another computer again because people will
perceive that he's playing the second best program, since the best one
can beat him.
Other players might play other programs, but it will never be the same
as Kasparov - Deep Blue.
This is the lasting legacy of the DB match. They destroyed top-level
computer vs human competitions for the foreseeable future, in exchange
for some marketting fluff. None of us will get to play the human
world champion again until the human world champion is someone other
than Garry Kasparov, and maybe not even then.
bruce
Don Getkey
In article <352525c4....@news.seanet.com>, bru...@seanet.com (bruce
moreland) writes:
>>I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
>>played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
>>you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
>>made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
>>something you can derive from the 6 games.
>
>I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those games.
Oh, there are things that can be concluded about those games. Yusupov said the
following:
"I have seen Deep Blue playing some (senseless moves) in the recent match
against Kasparov."
And we know that Kasparov played "senselessly" too.
IMO, to say this about a machine is much more damning than to say it about a
human.
The most that can be said is that Kasparov played less well than Deep Bluell.
Considering Kasparov's underlying unsportsmen like creed of winning even at the
cost of personal honor, it serves him right that he lost in the embarrassing
way that he did. Put in another more perfect way, "pride before a fall."
Don Getkey
In article <35228c4e....@news.seanet.com>, bru...@seanet.com (bruce
moreland) writes:
I really appreciate what you are saying bruce, and you may very well be right
about all this. However, I like seeing Bob ante up with his capitalistic
market forces coin, but only because Bob rarely employs this approach.
My leaning is to the power of the market place, and the ego of the players.
When a balance is struck between these two things, action is the result.
janucz Wyborcza
Thank you for hello. Why nazi no go for nazi group and yell
nazi group you? Janucz hat nazi. Rolph hat nazi. Janucz Rolf
nice frend. Thank you no yell.
/* Janucz */
>>Why to talk about nazi fascist and yell at each uther?
>>I for to come learn program chess good. No for wach yell.
>>Please sorry bad english. I read for to program chess. No
>>write for yell but pepole make me mad. Please no yell me.
>>Please write for chess.
>
>>/* Janucz */
>
Thomas Davie
In article <B9DEAA8B870ED39E.7D8C0CAE...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, jan...@hotmail.com (janucz Wyborcza) wrote:
>Thank you for hello. Why nazi no go for nazi group and yell
>nazi group you? Janucz hat nazi. Rolph hat nazi. Janucz Rolf
>nice frend. Thank you no yell.
>
>/* Janucz */
>
Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
help need Rolf.
Tom
Robert Hyatt
Don Getkey <dong...@aol.com> wrote:
: I really appreciate what you are saying bruce, and you may very well be right
: about all this. However, I like seeing Bob ante up with his capitalistic
: market forces coin, but only because Bob rarely employs this approach.
: My leaning is to the power of the market place, and the ego of the players.
: When a balance is struck between these two things, action is the result.
Remember, all I said was that *if* the bean counters at IBM decide that
another match of some sort has some potential to make money, they'll
do it. If they decide to retire and bask in the victory of the second
match, they will probably do that. But, based on comments I've heard in
public and private, IBM is going to make the decision based on the bottom
line for the "company"... not based on what the DB team members want to do
here. Because it is all about how many beans there are to count.
That's why academia is nice... that's not an issue... But then we won't
likely have the resources that a company like IBM has... so win some, lose
some...
I don't think that "kasparov" will have any influence on the decision.
Because he has nothing to do with IBM, and he acted like a jerk after the
match. So unless the marketing folks see some advantage to a "thrilla in
Manilla" if you remember the famous Ali - Frasier rematch, there won't be
one just because Kasparov wants one...
: yours in chess,
: Don
: Coon Rapids MN USA
--
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from hy...@cis.uab.edu
> I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
> played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
> you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
> made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
> something you can derive from the 6 games.
>
> IE take those 6 games, change the player's names to XXXX and YYYY, and
> give 'em to a GM, and he would *not* say "Hmmm... XXXX seems to have
> altered his opening selection strategy for some reason and got into
> territory he was not familiar with..." Because he would have *no* idea
> of what XXXX normally played...
Right, but he would be able to say who played stronger/better/had the
better position etc.!
We are simply patzers and have only subjective sight, but masters know
s.th. more about chess than we do...
Harald Faber
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from fue...@sci.fi
> > As Kasparov stated the machine was NOT playing exclusively on its own!
>
> Kasparov was very childish. He was badly beaten and looking for excuses. He
> lost his nerves during the match.
>
> > From game two on Kasparov claimed that there was something *fishy*
> > with the machine. Meaning that *h u m a n* influences happened.
>
> Human interference would have made the whole meeting pointless.
For whom?
> > Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
> > other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
> > Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>
> Where's the proof? Could you post the proof here?
> Harri Pesonen
Bob Hyatt always said IBM doesn't give output information and for good
reasons.
Harald Faber
rag...@miracon.net
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:58:58 GMT, tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie)
wrote:
While I agree that at times Rolf seems to be obsessed with Naziism, I
find it offensive that you would mock someone's lack of facility with
English, which is clearly not his first language. Even Rolf was kind
enough to welcome Janucz to the group. Can't we all get along?
Dr. Joe Ragazzi
Kevin Heider
Har...@t-online.de wrote:
>Right, but he would be able to say who played stronger/better/had the
>better position etc.!
>We are simply patzers and have only subjective sight, but masters know
>s.th. more about chess than we do...
The "masters" know more than we (general chess players) do. Correct.
But it is possible that Deep Blue knows more than ANYTHING in the
whole world, because DB sees so deep. Remember Deep Blue is NOT a
LOWLY Pentium II at 333 or even 4000MHz.
-- Kevin Heider
Rolf Tueschen
dong...@aol.com (Don Getkey) wrote:
>In article <352525c4....@news.seanet.com>, bru...@seanet.com (bruce
>moreland) writes:
>>>I don't disagree. I simply say that if you look at the *six* games
>>>played, I don't see anything that suggests that Kasparov is better. If
>>>you go into psychology, or into prior games by Kasparov and say that he
>>>made poor opening choices, that's something else. But that is *not*
>>>something you can derive from the 6 games.
>>
>>I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those games.
>Oh, there are things that can be concluded about those games. Yusupov said the
>following:
> "I have seen Deep Blue playing some (senseless moves) in the recent match
>against Kasparov."
>And we know that Kasparov played "senselessly" too.
>IMO, to say this about a machine is much more damning than to say it about a
>human.
>The most that can be said is that Kasparov played less well than Deep Bluell.
>Considering Kasparov's underlying unsportsmen like creed of winning even at the
>cost of personal honor, it serves him right that he lost in the embarrassing
>way that he did. Put in another more perfect way, "pride before a fall."
All nice talking ...
But I detect a sympathy for blind approaches.
I made the quote for an interesting lecture Kasparov held at Oxford.
Where he talked about the show against Deep Blue.
Of course nobody wants to comment because it would offend the IBM/DB
proxies Hyatt and Moreland, both well known Fascist Censors of the CCC
on ICDchess of Tim Mirabile and Steve Schwartz.
Fantastic, the American way of free debating. Funny...
For those who are used to think for themselves, here the link:
and then click further on Kasparov in Oxford ...
Have fun.
Rolf Tueschen
rag...@miracon.net wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:58:58 GMT, tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie)
>wrote:
>>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>>help need Rolf.
>>
>>Tom
>While I agree that at times Rolf seems to be obsessed with Naziism,
Dear Dr. Joe, little correction. It's true that I'm concerned with
German Neo-_Nazism_. That's true. But as a German I simply learnt my
lesson from history.
The author here from Canada (?) is obviously an inhuman humiliator,
and potentially Fascist. Look at his nice and friendly (!) language.
The jerk is also the one who paid for a professional killer who should
kill Rolf.
Listen Dr. Joe. To make it quite clear. A German, who's obsessed with
neo-nazi propaganda of a German expert of computer chess here in rgcc,
is "better" and mentally well situated, than in comparison a Canadian
(?) fool who spreads open killer threats...!?
To confuse this all up, that is the eternal sin of Fascist Censors
like Moreland, Hyatt, Irazequi, Frick., BergerMoritz and so on ... ...
To Joe very personally. I cant understand why an academic (?) "Dr."
can confuse the mentally instabile fixation/obsession of a fool and
the honest responsibility of an educated (and academic!) German who
warned against sloppy/dangerous neo-nazi propagations of new
concentration camps and signing of political opponents in the streets
of today's Germany. If experts like the famous Ed Schroder from REBEL,
probably the World's most successful programmer of chess micros,
insulted me as a pig for my honest and noble position I should have
the right to write and comment about the scandal as long as the
experts give me apologies here in public. Period.
Joe, the police also is hunteing after criminals as long as they've
been caught. And nobody who's sane enough comes up with the idea that
the police is somewhat "obsessed".
The same here with my hunt after the Dutch businessman Schroder who's
a triple character assassin against me. And therefore I call him a
criminal too. Period.
Many friendly greetings to you nevertheless :)
Rolf Tueschen
(also The Pope elected here for RGCC)
Robert Hyatt
Har...@t-online.de wrote:
: quoting a mail from fue...@sci.fi
: For whom?
This is old and incorrect. Kasparov was given the output he requested.
This was reported in the NY times right after the match. They didn't want
to give him the output *during* the match for obvious reasons...
you will notice that he's not mentioned this again. In fact, some of one
log was printed in the NY times, and a part was even posted here with a
disucssion about the "panic time" issue...
: Harald Faber
rag...@miracon.net
On 1 Apr 1998 11:25:13 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>rag...@miracon.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:58:58 GMT, tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>>>help need Rolf.
>>>
>>>Tom
>
>>While I agree that at times Rolf seems to be obsessed with Naziism,
>
>Dear Dr. Joe, little correction. It's true that I'm concerned with
>German Neo-_Nazism_. That's true. But as a German I simply learnt my
>lesson from history.
>
>The author here from Canada (?) is obviously an inhuman humiliator,
>and potentially Fascist. Look at his nice and friendly (!) language.
>
So anyone with unfriendly language is "potentially Fascist"? You're
off the deep end, my friend.
>The jerk is also the one who paid for a professional killer who should
>kill Rolf.
>
And paranoid...
>Listen Dr. Joe. To make it quite clear. A German, who's obsessed with
>neo-nazi propaganda of a German expert of computer chess here in rgcc,
>is "better" and mentally well situated, than in comparison a Canadian
>(?) fool who spreads open killer threats...!?
>
You sound pretty defensive. You've posted about Naziism in a chess
group over 1,000 times. What are the rest of us to think?
>
>To confuse this all up, that is the eternal sin of Fascist Censors
>like Moreland, Hyatt, Irazequi, Frick., BergerMoritz and so on ... ...
>
>To Joe very personally. I cant understand why an academic (?) "Dr."
>can confuse the mentally instabile fixation/obsession of a fool and
>the honest responsibility of an educated (and academic!) German who
>warned against sloppy/dangerous neo-nazi propagations of new
>concentration camps and signing of political opponents in the streets
>of today's Germany. If experts like the famous Ed Schroder from REBEL,
>probably the World's most successful programmer of chess micros,
>insulted me as a pig for my honest and noble position I should have
>the right to write and comment about the scandal as long as the
>experts give me apologies here in public. Period.
>
"Dr."? Fool? Now who's confused?
>Joe, the police also is hunteing after criminals as long as they've
>been caught. And nobody who's sane enough comes up with the idea that
>the police is somewhat "obsessed".
>
This doesn't make any sense.
>The same here with my hunt after the Dutch businessman Schroder who's
>a triple character assassin against me. And therefore I call him a
>criminal too. Period.
>
Happy hunting, Rolf.
>
>Many friendly greetings to you nevertheless :)
>
Why negate your one friendly comment with a ":)" ?
Remember, you wrote this:
>with one
>or two exceptions the whole group "rgcc" is pro "concentration camps"
>and "signing of oppositional people" as far as Germany is meant
and you "sign" yourself thusly:
>Rolf Tueschen
>(also The Pope elected here for RGCC)
>
Since it is then clear that you were elected by a majority of
Neo-Nazis, wouldn't a more accurate title for you be "The Fuhrer of
RGCC"?
Joe Ragazzi
bruce moreland
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 11:15:33 -0800, f...@accountant.com wrote:
>I was at Paris 1997 and Bruce did no such thing - but folks knew that
>anyway.Bruce - shall I run both TAUSCHEN_COM *and* TUESCHEN_COM at the same
>time - they will "hate" each-other (insofar as 2cpcphe-o)?
>I never anticipated the potential here....
Here is the story again for those interested.
At the Paris WMCCC, Peter Schreiner was present and was the sole
member of the MChess team. Peter had a broken heel and was on
crutches.
Peter was given an official exemption from having to move his machine
during the main competition. He was walking the kilometer to the
tournament hall every day, but there's no way he's going to move a
machine, not that it's a big deal in the normal competition. It is an
exhausting competition, but the machine moves aren't why, they are
infrequent, so it doesn't matter if you do more of them than you would
if your opponent wasn't stuck in a chair.
For the blitz tournament, Peter was going to be operating Chess System
Tal, not MChess. Thorsten and Chris were both present, sitting next
to Peter, looking comfortable, when Jaap announced that the CST team
wouldn't have to move in the blitz event.
The blitz event is not like the normal event. You play a game at 7 0
then you either stay put and play another one against someone else, or
you pick up your machine and move it before playing the next one.
It is a pain to move the machine, and if one of the participants can't
or won't move, others have to move their machines more. If moving a
machine after a blitz game doesn't sound like a big deal, try it.
If a team is able to do its share of machine moving, it should, and I
only saw two cutches at that table, not six.
bruce
Rolf Tueschen
f...@accountant.com wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>> For those who are used to think for themselves, here the link:
>>
>> www.chessbase.com
>>
>> and then click further on Kasparov in Oxford ...
>>
>> Have fun.
>>
> You will not find Gazza making any defamatory or quasi-defamatory remarks about DB
>on the chessbase site: save yourselves the long download times for the videos.
1.) What has a Gazza to do here. I thougt Gazza was Seirawan. No?
2.) Of course Kasparov doesn't attack Deep Blue, the machine.
3.) It's sufficient that he accused the teamsters around
a) for not having sent him the output from the machine and
b) because IBM did
I. hide the machine behind closed doors for anyone outside IBM
II. opening a second terminal near by for other GM teamsters
III. possibly cheat (my expression) somehow during game two.
But then I agree with your numskull ---- it's *really* NOT a big
thing. Noooo. That's obviously totally normal. For example in other
SPORTS like, ehem, let's take _boxing_ for example. :)
Excuse me for intervening as operator of TUESCHEN_COM.
The Pope of all Operators
(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
P.S.
Please all American Baby Boys, please dont read the messages on
chessbase.com because it could destroy your picture you've made of the
World. Please stay fidele in American Provinciality. It saves your
souls for *ever*. :)
But IF you want to read that stuff against all my warnings, PLEASE do
contact before you read, your Fascist Censor Bob Hyatt or the Little
Fat Proxy Baby Bruce Moreland, the Humiliator of The Cripples during
the 1997 WCCC at Paris. If they forbid to read chessbase.com too, then
you really should NOT read that stuff. It's sooo dangerous. ;;-)
Rolf Tueschen
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>: Bob Hyatt always said IBM doesn't give output information and for good
>: reasons.
>This is old and incorrect. Kasparov was given the output he requested.
>This was reported in the NY times right after the match. They didn't want
>to give him the output *during* the match for obvious reasons...
>you will notice that he's not mentioned this again.
Fascist Censor and LIAR --- shut your mouth. You're lying again.
Read on www.chessbase.com for the details. Up to now IBMcheaters
didn't provide him with the output. Period!!
Excerpts dont count. Period!!
The Pope of a True Science and Honest Sports
(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
Rodrigo Andrade
No analysis at all. Deep Blue used a heck of an end game database!!! That was
its main strength.
Rodrigo
Rolf Tueschen
rag...@miracon.net wrote:
>On 1 Apr 1998 11:25:13 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>rag...@miracon.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:58:58 GMT, tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>>>>help need Rolf.
>>>>
>>>>Tom
>>
>>>While I agree that at times Rolf seems to be obsessed with Naziism,
>>
>>Dear Dr. Joe, little correction. It's true that I'm concerned with
>>German Neo-_Nazism_. That's true. But as a German I simply learnt my
>>lesson from history.
>>
>>The author here from Canada (?) is obviously an inhuman humiliator,
>>and potentially Fascist. Look at his nice and friendly (!) language.
>>
>So anyone with unfriendly language is "potentially Fascist"? You're
>off the deep end, my friend.
Don't call me please your friend. It's problematical to become friends
with someone whose understanding is so limited.
Of course nobody with an unfriendly language does become by force a
Fascist or potentially a Fascist. The conclusion about the guy here in
question however was based on many fascist postings the guy had sent
to rgcc. Please check Dejas for yourself.
>>The jerk is also the one who paid for a professional killer who should
>>kill Rolf.
>>
>And paranoid...
>>Listen Dr. Joe. To make it quite clear. A German, who's obsessed with
>>neo-nazi propaganda of a German expert of computer chess here in rgcc,
>>is "better" and mentally well situated, than in comparison a Canadian
>>(?) fool who spreads open killer threats...!?
>>
>You sound pretty defensive. You've posted about Naziism in a chess
>group over 1,000 times. What are the rest of us to think?
Depends of how stupid you decide to appear here in public.
Listen, I was the one, the only one, who had the guts to oppose the
neo-nazi and therefore I was insulted as a pig by the Dutch criminal
Schroder from REBEL. So it should be clear also for the more
low-levelled in respect to their education here in rgcc that I had to
defend myself for the sake of the rgcc itself. So while I fight almost
on my own against the neo-nazi and the Fascist clique of the CCC
founder group I have to mention the word nazi in many connections. But
you dont want to imply that I spread Nazi propaganda while fighting a
neo-nazi and his clique, no?
>>
>>To confuse this all up, that is the eternal sin of Fascist Censors
>>like Moreland, Hyatt, Irazequi, Frick., BergerMoritz and so on ... ...
>>
>>To Joe very personally. I cant understand why an academic (?) "Dr."
>>can confuse the mentally instabile fixation/obsession of a fool and
>>the honest responsibility of an educated (and academic!) German who
>>warned against sloppy/dangerous neo-nazi propagations of new
>>concentration camps and signing of political opponents in the streets
>>of today's Germany. If experts like the famous Ed Schroder from REBEL,
>>probably the World's most successful programmer of chess micros,
>>insulted me as a pig for my honest and noble position I should have
>>the right to write and comment about the scandal as long as the
>>experts give me apologies here in public. Period.
>>
>"Dr."? Fool? Now who's confused?
>>Joe, the police also is hunteing after criminals as long as they've
>>been caught. And nobody who's sane enough comes up with the idea that
>>the police is somewhat "obsessed".
>>
>This doesn't make any sense.
Yes, apparently. But that's the reason why you dont understand of what
I'm talking about. Sorry.
>>The same here with my hunt after the Dutch businessman Schroder who's
>>a triple character assassin against me. And therefore I call him a
>>criminal too. Period.
>>
>Happy hunting, Rolf.
>>
>>Many friendly greetings to you nevertheless :)
>>
>Why negate your one friendly comment with a ":)" ?
But you really are too stupid to understand the easiest English
wordings. Look, dear member, I did not qualify my friendly greetings
with the smiley but the notion "nevertheless". To balance the possible
offense that lay for you in my wordings. You see, I cannot leave aside
my job as Pope of Peace, Love and RGCC. I simply cant hate. I must
always love... :)
>Remember, you wrote this:
>>with one
>>or two exceptions the whole group "rgcc" is pro "concentration camps"
>>and "signing of oppositional people" as far as Germany is meant
>and you "sign" yourself thusly:
>>Rolf Tueschen
>>(also The Pope elected here for RGCC)
>>
>Since it is then clear that you were elected by a majority of
>Neo-Nazis, wouldn't a more accurate title for you be "The Fuhrer of
>RGCC"?
A Pope is no Fuehrer. Will you please be so kind and leave out such
nazi notions??!
I was not elected by the majority of Nazis or non-Nazis. I was elected
by one of the computer chess GODS like a British Knight gets his new
title through the Queen. You understand, it's more an aristocratic
signing. It's more an idealistic crowning due to my deep seeking for
peace and love among humans. And my firm opposition against BOB
Hyatt's gasolining atrocities. Yes, I can say that I became famous
because I didn't fear death or any threats at all in my behavior
against the former elite here on rgcc. So it was concludent that I as
the newest newbie became suddenly the Pope of peace and RGCC.
Perhaps you get the idea. :)
Don Getkey
>You will not find Gazza making any defamatory or quasi-defamatory remarks
>about DB
>on the chessbase site: save yourselves the long download times for the
>videos.
>
>TUE(AU)SCHEN_COM dances to another toon: it hears things we cannot.
>
>Kind Regards
>
>fca
>
>
This is interesting, and yet seems to fit. I always thought the technology was
upon us, just not to what extent.
It explains why *Rolf l* is woefully inept at English expression. Much more so
than ANY non-English speaking human, German or otherwise.
Now I understand why Rolf l is so obtuse. It doesn't actually know what the
words it uses really mean. Cool!
Don Getkey
In article <6fshlc$v99$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu>
writes:
>Remember, all I said was that *if* the bean counters at IBM decide that
>another match of some sort has some potential to make money, they'll
>do it. If they decide to retire and bask in the victory of the second
>match, they will probably do that. But, based on comments I've heard in
>public and private, IBM is going to make the decision based on the bottom
>line for the "company"... not based on what the DB team members want to do
>here. Because it is all about how many beans there are to count.
>
>That's why academia is nice... that's not an issue... But then we won't
>likely have the resources that a company like IBM has... so win some, lose
>some...
>
>I don't think that "kasparov" will have any influence on the decision.
>Because he has nothing to do with IBM, and he acted like a jerk after the
>match. So unless the marketing folks see some advantage to a "thrilla in
>Manilla" if you remember the famous Ali - Frasier rematch, there won't be
>one just because Kasparov wants one...
>
>
I agree with you Bob, and would add that like all great competitions there
has to be some kind of catalyst to ignite it. Something special must be
supporting it.
In the case of IBM the historical benefit has been fantastic. Can anymore be
gained in
publicity after making history? Sure, repeating the feat is almost as good,
and popular, in
these days of consecutive world champions.
In a way, I think Kasparov set himself up for eventual predestinated defeat,
simply because he was always going to play whatever machine was laying claim as
the strongest, over and over, and
over again. Kasparov thought (incorrectly) that should he ever lose, a rematch
would be automatic.
Afterall, didn't he always grant rematches to DeepThought l and ll, and
DeepBlue? Had he been more gracious in defeat, I have no doubt that we would
be watching a re-match right now.
Practically speaking, making history was a bonus born out of what was really
trying to be
accomplished. Like all great history making events, this victory over the world
champion was a natural by-product of some extremely hard work, in a cutting
edge technology.
From the little bit that I have read, we can easily draw comparisons to all
kinds of historical events, and deduce a possible likelihood. E.g., Apollo
11's landing on the Moon. America didn't stop sending men to the Moon after
Neil Armstrong. We went back 6 times, until a new direction was taken and
budgets were cut. Applied here IBM/DeepBlue ll, has only lightly skipped along
the ancient lunar chess landscape for but a brief single moment.
As far as we know, the SP/6000 series is now a big hit, so there appears to be
no need for a course correction, and/or budget reduction. Which would mean
that history is theirs to make yet again.
p.s. I did read a report that stated IBM, "has not eliminated the DeepBlue
project, and
that it (Deep Blue ll) is likely to push pawns sometime in the undetermined
future."
rag...@miracon.net
On 2 Apr 1998 00:21:21 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
No, I'm not stupid. I was just misguided. I can see it all now!
Yes, yes, Rolf makes perfect sense. It's everyone else here that's
crazy! Indubitably! Everyone in the world is crazy! Only Rolf is
sane! Yes, that's it! Why didn't I see it before???
Joe Ragazzi
Rolf's army wants you!
Thomas Davie
In article <3521e491...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, rag...@miracon.net wrote:
>
>While I agree that at times Rolf seems to be obsessed with Naziism, I
>find it offensive that you would mock someone's lack of facility with
>English, which is clearly not his first language. Even Rolf was kind
>enough to welcome Janucz to the group. Can't we all get along?
>
>Dr. Joe Ragazzi
I don't give two hoots what language this person speaks. Now, color me
paranoid, but I do not think him a real person. Anyway, to answer your
question; no I do not think we can get along. That's pretty sad as well as it
is obvious by now.
Tom
janucz Wyborcza
On 2 Apr 1998 00:21:21 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Don't call me please your friend. It's problematical to become friends
>with someone whose understanding is so limited.
Why you say bad for to me? How you say understaning is so limited for
to me. Janucz very bad english. Janucz good smart! MabyRolf good
english. MabyRolf baby braim. Janucz read rgcc maybee for lot time.
Janucz understanding rgcc for lot time. No for janucz for to be for
problematical understanding. Is for problematical understanding for
nazi for rgcc.
>
>Of course nobody with an unfriendly language does become by force a
>Fascist or potentially a Fascist. The conclusion about the guy here in
>question however was based on many fascist postings the guy had sent
>to rgcc. Please check Dejas for yourself.
Janucz no fascist. Janucz no nazi. nazi for to kill janucz famaly.
nazi for to make for break janucz poland. JANUCZ NO NAZI! Janucz hat
nazi!
Thomas Davie for to Janucz say
>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>help need Rolf.
>
>Tom
Maby for truth Thomas Davie.
forgive for yell pepole rolf for to mad janucz.
Jan Eric Larsson
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>
>Guess why? :))
Kasparov got to see the printouts later and after that there was
no more trouble from him. So the above was a lie. In an earlier
e-mail you promised anyone 10 USD if they could find you lying.
Rolf, you owe me 10 USD. Mail it to me as soon as possible. Thanks.
--
Jan Eric Larsson
Department of Information Technology, Lund Institute of Technology,
Box 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden, E-mail: Jan...@IT.LTH.Se
Phone: +46 46 222 7523, Secr: +46 46 222 7520, Fax: +46 46 222 4714
Robert Hyatt
Jan Eric Larsson <jan...@dit.lth.se> wrote:
: Rolf Tueschen wrote:
Jan, you are too late. I already claimed that 10 bucks a couple of
days ago... :)
Robert Hyatt
Rodrigo Andrade <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> wrote:
: No analysis at all. Deep Blue used a heck of an end game database!!! That was
: its main strength.
: Rodrigo
This is a false assumption. They had nothing more than Ken's 5 piece
files to work with, according to the "team". 5 piece files are big,
but 6 piece files are *huge*, and unfortunately there are many more
of 'em than 5 piece files. A single "set" of 5 piece files costs about
2 gigs now (set = KXPKX plus the promotions for the P).
DB's main strength was (a) it's incredible speed and (b) the hardware
chess processor that lets it produce this speed without having to rip
out the evaluation and everything else...
Hello
Could be that even at DB II's level, with all its speed and logic, the
evaluation function doesn't really converge on a single best move. To the
extent that this is true, if it is true, the victory of Deep Blue over
Kasparov could be simply a case of Player A beats Player B, who beats player
C, while C beats A. We'll never know whether or not that is the case until
other players play DB II. Perhaps Anand could beat DB II rather
consistently, for example. Consequently, the idiosyncrasies of Kasparov's
chess aside, DB II hasn't been shown, in a totally solid empirical fashion,
to be superior to humans yet. IBM has therefore provided a suggestion of its
superiority, but may have no generaliziability for its result.
Comments?
Roger
Kevin Heider wrote in message <352215df...@news.mother.com>...
Rolf Tueschen
jan...@hotmail.com (janucz Wyborcza) wrote:
>On 2 Apr 1998 00:21:21 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>Don't call me please your friend. It's problematical to become friends
>>with someone whose understanding is so limited.
>Why you say bad for to me?
Please, dear Janu, try to understand what I had written. That was NOT
written to Janucz!!!!!
I had written that to Dr. Joe Ragazza!!!! Not for Janucz!!!!!
Janucz is OK. Dr. Joe is NOT ok.
Please answere me, Janu, that you did understand that.
Thank you, Janucz.
>How you say understaning is so limited for
>to me. Janucz very bad english. Janucz good smart! MabyRolf good
>english. MabyRolf baby braim.
Yes, Rolf's brain is still VERY young. Rolf is still 23 years old!!!!
So Rolf's baby brain is for a good future, Janucz.
>Janucz read rgcc maybee for lot time.
>Janucz understanding rgcc for lot time. No for janucz for to be for
>problematical understanding. Is for problematical understanding for
>nazi for rgcc.
>>
>>Of course nobody with an unfriendly language does become by force a
>>Fascist or potentially a Fascist. The conclusion about the guy here in
>>question however was based on many fascist postings the guy had sent
>>to rgcc. Please check Dejas for yourself.
>Janucz no fascist. Janucz no nazi. nazi for to kill janucz famaly.
>nazi for to make for break janucz poland. JANUCZ NO NAZI! Janucz hat
>nazi!
Janucz, nobody has called Janucz a Nazi! Please read more carefully.
>Thomas Davie for to Janucz say
>>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>>help need Rolf.
>>
>>Tom
>Maby for truth Thomas Davie.
This Canadian is a Fascist. This Canadian is an inhuman, bad Fascist.
This Canadian is also propably a little Nazi.
However Janucz or Rolf are NOT nazis. Of course NOT!
>forgive for yell pepole rolf for to mad janucz.
Again, Janucz, welcome to the group RGCC. Have fun.
If you have further questions, please ask Rolf via email.
The adress of Rolf is
The Pope of RGCC Rodolpherus XXIII.
(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
Rolf Tueschen
jan...@dit.lth.se (Jan Eric Larsson) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
>>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
>>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>>
>>Guess why? :))
>Kasparov got to see the printouts later and after that there was
>no more trouble from him. So the above was a lie. In an earlier
>e-mail you promised anyone 10 USD if they could find you lying.
>Rolf, you owe me 10 USD. Mail it to me as soon as possible. Thanks.
Hello Jan,
thanks for your big interest in my posting.
May I be allowed to explain to you the full truth??
Here it is.
It is NOT me, Rolf, Your pope of RGCC, who stated that Kasparov didn't
get the output. Please try to understand that. I quoted Kasparov
himself. What he wrote on the webpage of ChessBase. In his Oxford
lecture!!
I know and Kasparov knows too that he had got "something", but that
was ONLY a very short output for one or two moves!!
But again, if you dont understand that I only quoted Kasparov's own
description, you miss completely my own contributions here.
I gave the information for a new link to that lecture in Oxford. I
didn't invent new facts to annoy you. Period.
Why do you want to ignore Kasparov and to defame me?? I did never
write anything to you personnally. Why do you saddle your pony with
the Fascist Censors like Bob Hyatt?? Do you doubt my theory that he'S
a Fach-Idiot?
BTW why dont you check for the true data for yourself instead of
believing Bob or other impostors (on of-topics). Cant you see that Bob
is only a cheap proxy for IBM and the big cheat in May 97?!
Many greetings and please apologize if you once will see that you have
accused me falsely.
Rolf Tueschen
The Pope Of RGCC
rag...@miracon.net
On 2 Apr 1998 13:50:51 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>jan...@hotmail.com (janucz Wyborcza) wrote:
>
>>On 2 Apr 1998 00:21:21 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>>(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>
>>>Don't call me please your friend. It's problematical to become friends
>>>with someone whose understanding is so limited.
>
>>Why you say bad for to me?
>
>Please, dear Janu, try to understand what I had written. That was NOT
>written to Janucz!!!!!
>
>I had written that to Dr. Joe Ragazza!!!! Not for Janucz!!!!!
>
>Janucz is OK. Dr. Joe is NOT ok.
>
>
>Please answere me, Janu, that you did understand that.
>
>
>Thank you, Janucz.
>
>
>>How you say understaning is so limited for
>>to me. Janucz very bad english. Janucz good smart! MabyRolf good
>>english. MabyRolf baby braim.
>
>Yes, Rolf's brain is still VERY young. Rolf is still 23 years old!!!!
>
>So Rolf's baby brain is for a good future, Janucz.
>
>
>
>
>>Janucz read rgcc maybee for lot time.
>>Janucz understanding rgcc for lot time. No for janucz for to be for
>>problematical understanding. Is for problematical understanding for
>>nazi for rgcc.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Of course nobody with an unfriendly language does become by force a
>>>Fascist or potentially a Fascist. The conclusion about the guy here in
>>>question however was based on many fascist postings the guy had sent
>>>to rgcc. Please check Dejas for yourself.
>
>>Janucz no fascist. Janucz no nazi. nazi for to kill janucz famaly.
>>nazi for to make for break janucz poland. JANUCZ NO NAZI! Janucz hat
>>nazi!
>
>Janucz, nobody has called Janucz a Nazi! Please read more carefully.
>
>>Thomas Davie for to Janucz say
>>>Hello Janucz. Should know Rolf nazi. Rolf obsess nazi. Rolf disturb mental.
>>>help need Rolf.
>>>
>>>Tom
>
>>Maby for truth Thomas Davie.
>
>This Canadian is a Fascist. This Canadian is an inhuman, bad Fascist.
>This Canadian is also propably a little Nazi.
>
>However Janucz or Rolf are NOT nazis. Of course NOT!
>
>>forgive for yell pepole rolf for to mad janucz.
>
>Again, Janucz, welcome to the group RGCC. Have fun.
>
>If you have further questions, please ask Rolf via email.
>
>The adress of Rolf is
>
> TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>
>
>
>The Pope of RGCC Rodolpherus XXIII.
>(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
>
>
Let me assure you that your attempts to poison this young man's mind
will fail miserably.
Happy pillaging!
Joe Ragazzi
rag...@miracon.net
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 13:37:21 -0800, f...@accountant.com wrote:
Dear Thomas:
I don't know what this nonsense is about Janucz not being a "real
person", since he is obviously posting here. In any case, I can
assure you that he is not a computer bot, since he works with my son.
What is more disturbing is that you seem to have given up hope that we
can be civil. I see no reason why this has to be the case. While it
is true that there are a couple of bad eggs here in RGCC, that is no
reason for the rest of us to jump in the salad with them.
>JANUCZ_COM
>
Now that's how to handle a little flak - a sense of humor!
>Kind Regards
>
>fca
Not bad for the alpha version of fca.exe!
Keep on woodpushin'
Joe Ragazzi
rag...@miracon.net
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:10:30 -0500, "Hello" <joy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Could be that even at DB II's level, with all its speed and logic, the
>evaluation function doesn't really converge on a single best move. To the
>extent that this is true, if it is true, the victory of Deep Blue over
>Kasparov could be simply a case of Player A beats Player B, who beats player
>C, while C beats A. We'll never know whether or not that is the case until
>other players play DB II. Perhaps Anand could beat DB II rather
>consistently, for example. Consequently, the idiosyncrasies of Kasparov's
>chess aside, DB II hasn't been shown, in a totally solid empirical fashion,
>to be superior to humans yet. IBM has therefore provided a suggestion of its
>superiority, but may have no generaliziability for its result.
>
>Comments?
>
Exactly. If a relatively unknown GM were to beat Kasparov in an
exhibition match, would the chess world instantly proclaim him the
strongest player in the world? In the case of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov,
it is clear the Gary did not expect such a formidable challenge as the
computer gave him, and his play suffered as a result. The one short
match was hardly conclusive.
Unfortunately, IBM has demonstrated that it's interests were
commercial rather than scientific, so the great man-machine showdown
will have to wait a little while longer. Too bad for IBM - they would
have gained a lot of publicity if Gary had won a rematch, setting up
DB/GK III.
Joe Ragazzi
Robert Hyatt
rag...@miracon.net wrote :
: On 2 Apr 1998 13:50:51 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
: (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
: Happy pillaging!
: Joe Ragazzi
Someone ought to read the entire quoted stuff above, less that written
by Joe. This really looks like a monkey got hold of a typewriter, doesn't
it? :)
Rolf Tueschen
f...@accountant.com wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>> If you have further questions, please ask Rolf via email.
>> The adress of Rolf is
>> TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>> The Pope of RGCC Rodolpherus XXIII.
>> (c/o Rolf Tueschen)
>I must warn everyone against private communications with the proxy program. If
>you want to communicate privately with its author, you may email direct at
>f...@accountant.com.
>Direct email to the program @t-online.de may well result in a never-ending stream
>of junk email back to you and the incorporation of your address on a variety of
>junk mail lists:
Listen, you really should correct your offense. Please do it and it
will be forgotten. But if you dont then you will be noticed as another
defamor here in the Fascist clique. Please give a wise decision.
This is no more joking, what you do here. It's a form of character
assassination. Understood?
Rolf Tueschen
Jan Eric Larsson
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>
>Guess why? :))
I wrote:
>Kasparov got to see the printouts later and after that there was
>no more trouble from him. So the above was a lie. In an earlier
>e-mail you promised anyone 10 USD if they could find you lying.
>
>Rolf, you owe me 10 USD. Mail it to me as soon as possible. Thanks.
Rolf wrote:
>It is NOT me, Rolf, Your pope of RGCC, who stated that Kasparov didn't
>get the output. Please try to understand that. I quoted Kasparov
>himself. What he wrote on the webpage of ChessBase. In his Oxford
>lecture!!
But dear Rolf, you didn't write that you were quoting Kasparov in
your last e-mail. You wrote the e-mail. You said that IBM/DEEP BLUE
didn't provide the output. If you want people to understand that you
are quoting, write "Kasparov has stated...".
>I know and Kasparov knows too that he had got "something", but that
>was ONLY a very short output for one or two moves!!
Ok, so you do say that he got something, and above you said he didn't.
Either must be wrong, so why don't be honest and send the 10 USD?
>BTW why dont you check for the true data for yourself instead of
>believing Bob or other impostors (on of-topics). Cant you see that Bob
>is only a cheap proxy for IBM and the big cheat in May 97?!
No, there is no reason whatsoever that Robert Hyatt would be paid
by IBM to defend them in RGCC, and if he was, there is still no
reason to believe that he would be cheap. For free or very expensive,
but not cheap :-)
>Many greetings and please apologize if you once will see that you have
>accused me falsely.
Greetings to you to, and don't ask me to apologize. Live up to
your word and send the money instead. In fact, since Robert Hyatt
was quicker than me, I would be satisfied if you sent the money to
him instead. But then, of course, 100 USD as you wrote earlier. He
is not cheap, as you see :-)
Robert Hyatt
rag...@miracon.net wrote:
: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:10:30 -0500, "Hello" <joy...@ix.netcom.com>
: wrote:
:>
: Exactly. If a relatively unknown GM were to beat Kasparov in an
: exhibition match, would the chess world instantly proclaim him the
: strongest player in the world? In the case of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov,
: it is clear the Gary did not expect such a formidable challenge as the
: computer gave him, and his play suffered as a result. The one short
: match was hardly conclusive.
: Unfortunately, IBM has demonstrated that it's interests were
: commercial rather than scientific, so the great man-machine showdown
: will have to wait a little while longer. Too bad for IBM - they would
: have gained a lot of publicity if Gary had won a rematch, setting up
: DB/GK III.
Note that the next match would have been number III, Garry won the first,
lost the rematch last year...
Robert Hyatt
:>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
:>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
:>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
:>
:>Guess why? :))
: I wrote:
:>Kasparov got to see the printouts later and after that there was
:>no more trouble from him. So the above was a lie. In an earlier
:>e-mail you promised anyone 10 USD if they could find you lying.
:>
:>Rolf, you owe me 10 USD. Mail it to me as soon as possible. Thanks.
: Rolf wrote:
:>It is NOT me, Rolf, Your pope of RGCC, who stated that Kasparov didn't
:>get the output. Please try to understand that. I quoted Kasparov
:>himself. What he wrote on the webpage of ChessBase. In his Oxford
:>lecture!!
: But dear Rolf, you didn't write that you were quoting Kasparov in
: your last e-mail. You wrote the e-mail. You said that IBM/DEEP BLUE
: didn't provide the output. If you want people to understand that you
: are quoting, write "Kasparov has stated...".
:>I know and Kasparov knows too that he had got "something", but that
:>was ONLY a very short output for one or two moves!!
: Ok, so you do say that he got something, and above you said he didn't.
: Either must be wrong, so why don't be honest and send the 10 USD?
Jan... you and I have communicated a few times over the past few
years, and I *know* you are a bright guy. So *surely* you can figure
out that he will *never* admit that anything he says is false, by
using such dancing tactics as "I said it but I was quoting Kasparov
himself, so it was not me lying, but Kasparov." However, if you look
at what he wrote, the statement came from Rolf:
:>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
:>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
:>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
But he ain't gonna own up to it of course. I've emailed him a couple of
these months ago, and pointed out several lies over a two day period. I'm
not going to hold *my* breath waiting on the 10 bucks however. :)
:>BTW why dont you check for the true data for yourself instead of
:>believing Bob or other impostors (on of-topics). Cant you see that Bob
:>is only a cheap proxy for IBM and the big cheat in May 97?!
: No, there is no reason whatsoever that Robert Hyatt would be paid
: by IBM to defend them in RGCC, and if he was, there is still no
: reason to believe that he would be cheap. For free or very expensive,
: but not cheap :-)
:)
:>Many greetings and please apologize if you once will see that you have
:>accused me falsely.
: Greetings to you to, and don't ask me to apologize. Live up to
: your word and send the money instead. In fact, since Robert Hyatt
: was quicker than me, I would be satisfied if you sent the money to
: him instead. But then, of course, 100 USD as you wrote earlier. He
: is not cheap, as you see :-)
I'm not cheap, but I'm "easy"... :)
: --
: Jan Eric Larsson
: Department of Information Technology, Lund Institute of Technology,
: Box 118, 221 00 Lund, Sweden, E-mail: Jan...@IT.LTH.Se
: Phone: +46 46 222 7523, Secr: +46 46 222 7520, Fax: +46 46 222 4714
--
Komputer Korner
There would be no point except for increased randomness to not play
the single best move, and the evaluation function would have to
"converge" as you say to an arithmetical value. If the machine did
play moves other than the single best move, ( within a tight window
from the top of course) , you would get more random play but the
program would suffer a little bit in strength. I don't know of any
program doing this, but it sounds like a good idea.
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read
all the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read at your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
Hello wrote in message <6g047m$l...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
ami...@m-sys.com
In article <35228c4e....@news.seanet.com>,
bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland) wrote:
>
> On 31 Mar 1998 18:43:36 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> >Whether they will want to do that is another issue. But once the
> >shine from the Kasparov match wears off, marketing forces might well
> >demand that it be rolled out again for another shot in the arm...
>
> I don't think so. I think it's gone forever, for the simple reason
> that they accidentally climbed Everest when they were out for their
> afternoon walk. Everything they do after that will be anti-climactic.
>
> DB won't play Kasparov, another person, or another computer, ever
> again, because they might lose and spoil the public's impression that
> they are the best player on earth. I have seen in print (newspaper
> column), and heard on the radio (talk show), the comment that a
> computer is the best player on earth. This likely mistaken impression
> works in the favor of IBM. If the public gets the impression that you
> are better than you really are, why correct them?
>
> Kasparov won't play another computer again because people will
> perceive that he's playing the second best program, since the best one
> can beat him.
>
> Other players might play other programs, but it will never be the same
> as Kasparov - Deep Blue.
>
> This is the lasting legacy of the DB match. They destroyed top-level
> computer vs human competitions for the foreseeable future, in exchange
> for some marketting fluff. None of us will get to play the human
> world champion again until the human world champion is someone other
> than Garry Kasparov, and maybe not even then.
>
> bruce
>
>
This is well said, Bruce.
It was obvious to many people after the match that if IBM will take a certain
point of view, they will never be heard of again. It took some time to
understand that they are indeed adopting this viewpoint. It was settled when
they made the statement that the Deep Blue project is over. Contrary to what
Bob says and thinks, when big corporations make a public statement they mean
exactly what they say.
They could have taken other points of view, such as of science, sport and
chess, and acted otherwise. They could have talked endlessly, about the
project, about the match, about the moves they played and about their
machine, or just describe to the world what fun it was (if it was). Instead
they chose to disperse in a forced and embarassing silence. I'm not the first
to note how shamelessly insincere IBM's "for science" claim was, but I guess
many of us just hoped it would turn out not to be true.
I think it is time to talk about the legacy of Deep Blue. My view is that it
was a career completely wasted.
I'm trying to think what they did for computer chess that was significant,
and can't think of much. Deep Blue played so few games that it is impossible
to say what its style was, where were its weaknesses and its strengths.
Nobody really knows how strong they were. I think they had very little
influence on developers. Programs like Fritz, Rebel and others probably play
more games every night on the desks of amateur programmers than Deep Blue
played during its entire career. Of what they published, I think only
singular extension has any significance, and even that is not very
significant. They poured millions into their project, but did not find a cent
for the advancement of development and competition in computer chess (In
Paris, Jaap v.d. Herik told me that they would come in delegations of 5-6 to
ICCA events, but only one was registered as an ICCA member, the minimum
required).
Their only real innovation and achievement was their 200M NPS. This is a
great achievement, of course, but ... I think they managed to pass an entire
playing career without clearly showing what this is worth. We have no idea
how deep they searched and how much they would outsearch anyone. The evidence
is very unconvincing. In Hong-Kong they actually played some moves that
showed that some micros can outsearch them. If their huge NPS was apparent in
the two matches against Kasparov, then I completely missed it. We have no
move that they played that clearly shows that they were thinking real deep.
The only direct evidence that we have, of the few printouts they disclosed
after the 2nd match, contain some confusing and distrubing details that
rather than answer the question makes you wonder whether they really knew
what they were doing.
I often wonder about Hsu and Campbell. It's obvious that they are limited in
what they are allowed to say by an agreement they have with IBM. I wonder if
they are content with events. IBM got the respect of the general public, and
they probably are enjoying the respect of their family and neighbors, but I
think in their place I would be more concerned about the respect of my peers,
and would not feel so comfortable. They are two potential hall-of-famers, who
sadly turned into mercenaries of a corporation, and in the process lost
their independent identity as computer-chess developers. I don't think they
make it into the hall-of-fame, both for not demonstrating achievement, and
for their conduct.
I think nothing better symbolizes the legacy of Deep-Blue than those
printouts. These 4 pages, covered with almost incomprehensible junk,
carefully marked by a lawyer type "IBM Confidential", sitting in the drawers
of half-a-dozen people around the world, containing some puzzles that will
never be answered and never solved is the true legacy of Deep Blue.
Amir
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Rolf Tueschen
jan...@dit.lth.se (Jan Eric Larsson) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
>>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
>>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>>
>>Guess why? :))
>I wrote:
>>Kasparov got to see the printouts later and after that there was
>>no more trouble from him.
Bob Hyatt wrote the same with almost the same wording. I remember thta
very well. At the time I was not able to judge the statement. Guess
why? -- Simply because *I* cant know what Garry has gotten.
But, Jan, right now I AM able to comment. More. I know that Hyatt
lied. And alas, you too repeat the same lies.
G. Kasparov did NOT get "the" output. NB with "the" output we mean
the complete game output. Of course, I repeat, Kasparov got the output
for some two or three (?) moves at the time last year.
Now, Jan, let me ask you. What does force you to confuse facts and to
defame me with such lies. As if I would ever talk about stuff I didn't
know. What I did with my original post here was simply the mentioning
of the new link to "Kasparov in Oxford". Garry held a detailed lecture
over there and got an overhelming applause at the end...
So, why not visiting www.chessbase.com ==> Kasparov in Oxford
or just buying the EXPRESS CDRom No 62. There all the video and audio
data are contained. I didn't yet check the whole data, but one thing I
already learned was the quote I repeated here several times:
Garry stated, I think it was around Nov/Dec 97, for the time when he
held the lecture, that he DID NOT get the output. I repeat with data
it's meant thwe complete output for the crucial games. Period.
For you as student (?) at a European University it should be well
known that cheating with easy to check data is really a nonsense. Why
do you try to defame me as if I were so stupid not to be able to
differentiate between the whole data and the well know, and already
published data about one or two moves in the second game ...??
>> So the above was a lie. In an earlier
>>e-mail you promised anyone 10 USD if they could find you lying.
>>
>>Rolf, you owe me 10 USD. Mail it to me as soon as possible. Thanks.
>Rolf wrote:
>>It is NOT me, Rolf, Your pope of RGCC, who stated that Kasparov didn't
>>get the output. Please try to understand that. I quoted Kasparov
>>himself. What he wrote on the webpage of ChessBase. In his Oxford
>>lecture!!
>But dear Rolf, you didn't write that you were quoting Kasparov in
>your last e-mail.
You wont fuck me, excuse my expression, babe.
Will you please stop this nonsense. I wrote my post under the maiin
topic that now we knew from Kasparov in person (from his lecture) that
he did NOT get the output. When Kasparov stated that in Nov/Dec 97 he
was clearly not hiding that he got somewhere back in end of May (?)
the output of one or two moves ...
So, please stop that cheat/lie, because you dont attack me but
Kasparov if you dont believe the truth of the statement.
Do you really think it's giving you credit if you cheated on my
"perhaps" not high-classed English wordings?
>You wrote the e-mail.
Shit. What are you talking about. Once Hyatt accused me of lying
because I had written that I wanted to refer to a mail from him ...
and he said he had never written me a email ...
Now you pretend that I had written email to you. But I never did.
Period.
>You said that IBM/DEEP BLUE
>didn't provide the output. If you want people to understand that you
>are quoting, write "Kasparov has stated...".
Yes, I could have done this. But I was not forced. You little cheater.
If I was convinced that Kasparov did NOT lie when he told us in the
lecture in Oxford that he had NOT gotten the output, then I can adopt
the statement and state it myself, no??
Do you always say Newton stated this or that? I always thought that
certain folks could be quoted without ever mentioning their names?
From where should I have known the fact that Kasparov didn't yet get
the data?? If not from him?
>>I know and Kasparov knows too that he had got "something", but that
>>was ONLY a very short output for one or two moves!!
>Ok, so you do say that he got something, and above you said he didn't.
Thanks. But again, you wont fuck me, fuckface.
>Either must be wrong, so why don't be honest and send the 10 USD?
Because you are a proven lying fuckface. I try to imagine what that
does mean in detail, a fuckface. I adopted it from the newsgroup from
Hyatt or so ... ;-)
So if it's too hard for you, please excuse me and my weak English.
>>BTW why dont you check for the true data for yourself instead of
>>believing Bob or other impostors (on of-topics). Cant you see that Bob
>>is only a cheap proxy for IBM and the big cheat in May 97?!
>No, there is no reason whatsoever that Robert Hyatt would be paid
>by IBM to defend them in RGCC, and if he was, there is still no
>reason to believe that he would be cheap. For free or very expensive,
>but not cheap :-)
Hey, liar and fuckface. Who told you that I've authorized you to use
my statement in the sense that Hyatt was paid by IBM??? Liar.
Of course Hyatt is Mr. Free. With an ass___le for you too for free
entry to brown-nose him. :))
Give it a try. He will kiss you back. But again, dont try to fuck me,
fuckface. ;-)
>>Many greetings and please apologize if you once will see that you have
>>accused me falsely.
>Greetings to you to, and don't ask me to apologize. Live up to
>your word
I KNOW THAT: And I'm probably the only one of the both of us here who
adapted the trivial behavior. I simply have no intentions to lie
around here in usenet. Simply because I want to learn about
computerchess. But if someone tried to fuck me, well, then almost all
of 'em were sorry afterwards. -- Fuckface!
>and send the money instead. In fact, since Robert Hyatt
>was quicker than me, I would be satisfied if you sent the money to
>him instead. But then, of course, 100 USD as you wrote earlier. He
>is not cheap, as you see :-)
Believe me, he is cheap. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone so low to
defame me the innocent Pope. And now he learnt me the word fuckface.
Is it a really bad word? But it's true for you, ok?
You know what is the worst of your whole appearance here against Rolf?
That is the moment. When I had to fight the Fascist Censors and
character assassins here in rgcc. You really seem to feel good if you
too try to defame me? Brave old sucker. But of your sort I promisse,
I could still bear some dozens. Believe me. Fuckface.
You didnt apologize. But you will be sorry for that.
Robert Hyatt
ami...@m-sys.com wrote:
: This is well said, Bruce.
: It was obvious to many people after the match that if IBM will take a certain
: point of view, they will never be heard of again. It took some time to
: understand that they are indeed adopting this viewpoint. It was settled when
: they made the statement that the Deep Blue project is over. Contrary to what
: Bob says and thinks, when big corporations make a public statement they mean
: exactly what they say.
I don't believe they are "done". But there's no way to know except to
"hide and watch." Rather than speculate, I have plenty of time to wait
and see what happens...
: They could have taken other points of view, such as of science, sport and
: chess, and acted otherwise. They could have talked endlessly, about the
: project, about the match, about the moves they played and about their
: machine, or just describe to the world what fun it was (if it was). Instead
: they chose to disperse in a forced and embarassing silence. I'm not the first
: to note how shamelessly insincere IBM's "for science" claim was, but I guess
: many of us just hoped it would turn out not to be true.
: I think it is time to talk about the legacy of Deep Blue. My view is that it
: was a career completely wasted.
: I'm trying to think what they did for computer chess that was significant,
: and can't think of much. Deep Blue played so few games that it is impossible
: to say what its style was, where were its weaknesses and its strengths.
: Nobody really knows how strong they were. I think they had very little
: influence on developers. Programs like Fritz, Rebel and others probably play
: more games every night on the desks of amateur programmers than Deep Blue
: played during its entire career. Of what they published, I think only
: singular extension has any significance, and even that is not very
: significant. They poured millions into their project, but did not find a cent
: for the advancement of development and competition in computer chess (In
: Paris, Jaap v.d. Herik told me that they would come in delegations of 5-6 to
: ICCA events, but only one was registered as an ICCA member, the minimum
: required).
I can think of several things they "left" (if indeed they have "left"
at all):
1. Some excellent reading material on search extensions, as their
articles in JICCA, plus books and other non-chess journals.
2. Singular extensions which has *many* people looking at variants of
it, whether they own up to it (as richard lang and dave kittinger have)
or not...
3. some interesting ideas on what *can* be done in hardware. IE hell with
MMX, give me some make/unmake/evaluate instructions instead. :)
: Their only real innovation and achievement was their 200M NPS. This is a
: great achievement, of course, but ... I think they managed to pass an entire
: playing career without clearly showing what this is worth. We have no idea
: how deep they searched and how much they would outsearch anyone. The evidence
: is very unconvincing. In Hong-Kong they actually played some moves that
: showed that some micros can outsearch them. If their huge NPS was apparent in
: the two matches against Kasparov, then I completely missed it. We have no
: move that they played that clearly shows that they were thinking real deep.
: The only direct evidence that we have, of the few printouts they disclosed
: after the 2nd match, contain some confusing and distrubing details that
: rather than answer the question makes you wonder whether they really knew
: what they were doing.
there were some moves. IE a rc6 rather than rc7 in the game (maybe match
one) they won... all the micros wanted rc7, which might well have lost, or
it could have been the other way around... but no one was predicting their
move, yet the point became apparent 20+ plies later, because for the entire
end of that game, Kasparov had a mate in 1, but he never got to deliver it.
: I often wonder about Hsu and Campbell. It's obvious that they are limited in
: what they are allowed to say by an agreement they have with IBM. I wonder if
: they are content with events. IBM got the respect of the general public, and
: they probably are enjoying the respect of their family and neighbors, but I
: think in their place I would be more concerned about the respect of my peers,
: and would not feel so comfortable. They are two potential hall-of-famers, who
: sadly turned into mercenaries of a corporation, and in the process lost
: their independent identity as computer-chess developers. I don't think they
: make it into the hall-of-fame, both for not demonstrating achievement, and
: for their conduct.
: I think nothing better symbolizes the legacy of Deep-Blue than those
: printouts. These 4 pages, covered with almost incomprehensible junk,
: carefully marked by a lawyer type "IBM Confidential", sitting in the drawers
: of half-a-dozen people around the world, containing some puzzles that will
: never be answered and never solved is the true legacy of Deep Blue.
: Amir
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
pulgao
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>But he ain't gonna own up to it of course. I've emailed him a couple of
>these months ago, and pointed out several lies over a two day period. I'm
>not going to hold *my* breath waiting on the 10 bucks however. :)
Man, is it even *worth* $10 to have to try to communicate with the
guy?
P.S. I lied, too, Bob. I couldn't stay away. To quote Harlan Ellison,
this newsgroup has "the evil fascination of rotting orchids".
-- Steve Lopez
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/NY1924/ny1924.htm
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/T-NOTES/etn.htm
http://www.smartchess.com/SmartChessOnline/default.htm
spe...@tamu.edu
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Dear Dr. Joe, little correction. It's true that I'm concerned with
>German Neo-_Nazism_. That's true. But as a German I simply learnt my
>lesson from history.
What does Neo-Nazism and history have to do with chess computers?
Come on...you have a conscience....
>The author here from Canada (?) is obviously an inhuman humiliator,
>and potentially Fascist. Look at his nice and friendly (!) language.
>The jerk is also the one who paid for a professional killer who should
>kill Rolf.
Wow. You have a Marvelous, overdeveloped skill of saying things to get
people pissed off at you. And I must say, you are certainly an
energetic little off-topic poster. I wish you would turn all your wits
and energy to something useful in computer chess. Plenty of room for a
devil's advocate there.
[Tons of Mediator hack-meat deleted]
happy rambling,
Randy
rag...@miracon.net
On 2 Apr 1998 19:16:15 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
One cannot assassinate that which does not exist. Period.
Rags
rag...@miracon.net
That depends on what they would have decided to call the next version
of their program. Match one was with "Deep Thought".
In any case, most of the non-chessplaying public was unaware of the
first match. A classic scenario in boxing is: 1) challenger defeats
champion 2) champion wins rematch 3) audience pays really big bucks
to see fight #3. IBM could have set this up (no fix implied) and
generated a lot of publicity. Many have posted that IBM had
everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing a rematch, but I
don't believe this to be true.
Dr. Rags
rag...@miracon.net
On 2 Apr 1998 18:21:17 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>rag...@miracon.net wrote :
> : On 2 Apr 1998 13:50:51 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
> : (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>
> :>jan...@hotmail.com (janucz Wyborcza) wrote:
> :>
> :>>On 2 Apr 1998 00:21:21 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
> :>If you have further questions, please ask Rolf via email.
> :>
> :>The adress of Rolf is
> :>
> :> TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>The Pope of RGCC Rodolpherus XXIII.
> :>(c/o Rolf Tueschen)
> :>
> :>
> : Let me assure you that your attempts to poison this young man's mind
> : will fail miserably.
>
> : Happy pillaging!
>
>
> : Joe Ragazzi
>
>Someone ought to read the entire quoted stuff above, less that written
>by Joe. This really looks like a monkey got hold of a typewriter, doesn't
>it? :)
oooooooooooooo eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Joe
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from khe...@davis.com
> Har...@t-online.de wrote:
>
> >Right, but he would be able to say who played stronger/better/had the
> >better position etc.!
> >We are simply patzers and have only subjective sight, but masters know
> >s.th. more about chess than we do...
>
> The "masters" know more than we (general chess players) do. Correct.
> But it is possible that Deep Blue knows more than ANYTHING in the
> whole world, because DB sees so deep. Remember Deep Blue is NOT a
> LOWLY Pentium II at 333 or even 4000MHz.
> -- Kevin Heider
I don't mind how deep DB sees. Important is to evaluate the resulting
positions. See Junior etc. also reaching depths everybody is impressed but
he won't smash anyone.
Harald Faber
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from hy...@cis.uab.edu
> :> > As Kasparov stated the machine was NOT playing exclusively on its own!
> :>
> :> Kasparov was very childish. He was badly beaten and looking for excuses.
> :> He lost his nerves during the match.
> :>
> :> > From game two on Kasparov claimed that there was something *fishy*
> :> > with the machine. Meaning that *h u m a n* influences happened.
> :>
> :> Human interference would have made the whole meeting pointless.
>
> : For whom?
>
> :> > Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
> :> > other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
> :> > Kasparov with the output of the machine.
> :>
> :> Where's the proof? Could you post the proof here?
> :> Harri Pesonen
>
> : Bob Hyatt always said IBM doesn't give output information and for good
> : reasons.
>
> This is old and incorrect. Kasparov was given the output he requested.
> This was reported in the NY times right after the match. They didn't want
> to give him the output *during* the match for obvious reasons...
So what OUTPUT was he given??
> you will notice that he's not mentioned this again.
Maybe he saw that IBM would never give the output from during the
match....
Harald Faber
Komputer Korner
The bottom line of large widely held corporations is to bean count.
Even when they are donating money they still bean count for maximum PR
effect. You can't really blame corporations for this attitude because
if they go bankrupt they usually don't get bailed out except sometimes
by BIG government. Individuals don't take up collections for
corporations when they are in Chapter 11. Their lie of "For Science"
was inexcusable , but not against the law.
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read
all the postings on r.g.c.c.
Also every statement of mine should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read at your own risk and
assume that it is only this humble komputer's opinion.
ami...@m-sys.com wrote in message
<6g17ab$tuq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Jan Eric Larsson
Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Jan... you and I have communicated a few times over the past few
>years, and I *know* you are a bright guy. So *surely* you can figure
>out that he will *never* admit that anything he says is false, by
>using such dancing tactics as "I said it but I was quoting Kasparov
>himself, so it was not me lying, but Kasparov." However, if you look
>at what he wrote, the statement came from Rolf:
I have no idea why I jumped in, and in this thread of all. It is worse
than even the nude sailing debacle in rec.nude years ago (a flame war
of sailing nude; but you must wear a life vest; are there life vests
in tan-through material; etc; but that was at least fun). Anyway, I'm
out of it again.
>But he ain't gonna own up to it of course. I've emailed him a couple of
>these months ago, and pointed out several lies over a two day period. I'm
>not going to hold *my* breath waiting on the 10 bucks however. :)
In fact he promised you 100 bucks for every lie ponited out. With the
speed he keeps, it could be a nice side income?
Jan Eric Larsson
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>Look, there's a simple proof/piece of evidence for the cheat (beyond
>other points). Up to now the IBM/DEEP BLUE teamsters didn't provide
>Kasparov with the output of the machine.
>
>Guess why? :))
In the next posting he wrote:
>G. Kasparov did NOT get "the" output. NB with "the" output we mean
>the complete game output. Of course, I repeat, Kasparov got the output
>for some two or three (?) moves at the time last year.
>
>Now, Jan, let me ask you. What does force you to confuse facts and to
>defame me with such lies. As if I would ever talk about stuff I didn't
>know.
Dear Rolf, the simple reason for the misunderstanding is that you
forgot to write that you were quoting Kasparov, and then you forgot to
mention that you were speaking about "the whole output". You messed
up, and what came out was actually two lies. So 20 dollars is what you
owe, but I guess that you are not gentleman enough to admit anything
like that.
>For you as student (?) at a European University it should be well
>known that cheating with easy to check data is really a nonsense. Why
>do you try to defame me as if I were so stupid not to be able to
>differentiate between the whole data and the well know, and already
>published data about one or two moves in the second game ...??
Dear Rolf, that is exactly what you did. You forgot about the
difference in your previous posting. Well, you wrote stupid...
The Rolf goes into another mode:
>I try to imagine what that does mean in detail, a fuckface.
You have your fantazies, I have mine. But you would make a better
impression to the world if you were a bit more careful giving away
yours :-)
J...@suffolk.lib
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 10:09:15 -0800, f...@accountant.com wrote:
>hahahahahahahah!
>
>POINT OF LAW
>
>If we postulate that TUESCHEN_COM is a human person, has there been an
>actionable breach of contract? Could the "inhuman gasoliner" or the "jerk"
>(myself) sue and recover moneys for each "lie" uncovered?
>
>Federal laws of Deutschland AND USA agree here:
>
>1. Has there been an offer ("I will pay $10/100 if...") - YES - irrespective
>of whether it is to the world at large - and has it been accepted -YES,
>Hyatt certainly has, well documented
>2. Was there an intention to create binding legal relations - YES, all in
>writing, and repeated, and confirmed, by TUESCHEN_COM.
>3. Has there been valuable consideration? - YES - say Hyatt's time
>writing/researching - ref: Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company, elsewhere
>4. Was there duress - clearly NOT any on T_C
>5. Was there a preceding fundaamental breach by "our " side - NO, and Hyatt
>clearly fulfilled his part of the bargain by providing evidence of a
>suitable nature
>6. Were bargaining terms very unequal when the contract was made - NO - and
>the terms of the offer were made by TUESCHEN_COM
>7. Capacity to contract (age, sanity are relevant) - COULD BE PROBLEMS
>HERE.... was the contract for the supply of essentials - NO.... So may not
>be enforceable... Sanity get out......
>
>Sorry to disappoint. Over to you... the Pope has outwitted us all.
>
>Kind Regards
>
>fca
>(Author)
>
>
Could that be because we can't all get together and vote on creating a
moderated newsgroup?
Jon
Jan Eric Larsson
f...@accountant.com wrote:
>1. Has there been an offer ("I will pay $10/100 if...") - YES - irrespective
>of whether it is to the world at large - and has it been accepted -YES,
>Hyatt certainly has, well documented
>2. Was there an intention to create binding legal relations - YES, all in
>writing, and repeated, and confirmed, by TUESCHEN_COM.
>3. Has there been valuable consideration? - YES - say Hyatt's time
>writing/researching - ref: Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company, elsewhere
>4. Was there duress - clearly NOT any on T_C
>5. Was there a preceding fundaamental breach by "our " side - NO, and Hyatt
>clearly fulfilled his part of the bargain by providing evidence of a
>suitable nature
>6. Were bargaining terms very unequal when the contract was made - NO - and
>the terms of the offer were made by TUESCHEN_COM
>7. Capacity to contract (age, sanity are relevant) - COULD BE PROBLEMS
>HERE.... was the contract for the supply of essentials - NO.... So may not
>be enforceable... Sanity get out......
Very interesting observations indeed. It seems that I will never
earn any money in this way. Think, think, think...
I know! I will spam the world with a pyramid scheme and hope to get
my 10 dollars that way instead :-)
DO YOU WANT TO EARN 100 000 000 USD IN A WEEK?
THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!
Etc...
Rolf Tueschen
jan...@dit.lth.se (Jan Eric Larsson) wrote:
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>Jan... you and I have communicated a few times over the past few
>>years, and I *know* you are a bright guy. So *surely* you can figure
>>out that he will *never* admit that anything he says is false, by
>>using such dancing tactics as "I said it but I was quoting Kasparov
>>himself, so it was not me lying, but Kasparov." However, if you look
>>at what he wrote, the statement came from Rolf:
>I have no idea why I jumped in, and in this thread of all. It is worse
>than even the nude sailing debacle in rec.nude years ago (a flame war
>of sailing nude; but you must wear a life vest; are there life vests
>in tan-through material; etc; but that was at least fun). Anyway, I'm
>out of it again.
Go away fuckface. Now we know where you learnt your method. In
rec.nude years ago. We see. Fuckface. Piss off. Bye.
>>But he ain't gonna own up to it of course. I've emailed him a couple of
>>these months ago, and pointed out several lies over a two day period. I'm
>>not going to hold *my* breath waiting on the 10 bucks however. :)
>In fact he promised you 100 bucks for every lie ponited out. With the
>speed he keeps, it could be a nice side income?
Now we thought you were away? Fuckface.
Robert Hyatt
rag...@miracon.net wrote:
: That depends on what they would have decided to call the next version
: of their program. Match one was with "Deep Thought".
: In any case, most of the non-chessplaying public was unaware of the
: first match. A classic scenario in boxing is: 1) challenger defeats
: champion 2) champion wins rematch 3) audience pays really big bucks
: to see fight #3. IBM could have set this up (no fix implied) and
: generated a lot of publicity. Many have posted that IBM had
: everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing a rematch, but I
: don't believe this to be true.
: Dr. Rags
No... match one was against DB as was number 2. There was a 2 game
match against deep thought, but it was never counted as a serious
attempt.
The first match vs Deep Blue saw Kasparov finding weaknesses after
the first two games and having his way. Match number two saw him
fall apart...
Robert Hyatt
Har...@t-online.de wrote:
: quoting a mail from khe...@davis.com
: Harald Faber
Not exactly. Amir has already explained that the depth you see is *not*
what the rest of us would call an exhaustive search to that depth. IE
I could change this in iterate.c:
printf("%2d",depth);
to
printf("%2d",depth*2-1);
and change the output, but not the quality...
So you can't compare two programs ply for ply and get a useful comparison,
because most programs have search extensions and forward pruning that make
this comparison impossible...
Robert Hyatt
f...@accountant.com wrote:
<snip>
:> >
:> >
:> > : Joe Ragazzi
:> >
:> >Someone ought to read the entire quoted stuff above, less that written
:> >by Joe. This really looks like a monkey got hold of a typewriter, doesn't
:> >it? :)
:>
:> oooooooooooooo eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaaaaaaah
:>
:> Joe
: Hamlet will take a long time at this rate.
: Kind Regards
: fca
This is leading to interesting research by friends of mine however.
They are interested in the apparent probability distribution of the
random monkey typing, because it is producing a relatively high volume
of f***, nazi and fascist, a volume that seems to defy current statistical
and probablistic theory. They are now re-evaluating the central limit
theorem as it is obviously defective.
:)