Autoplayers and Bean-Counters
Chris Whittington
I found the following passage on the GambitSoft site:
"REBEL 10 ideas
Ed Schroder has deactivated the autoplayer function in his new program
because of the Fritz discussion in Sweden. For the same reason you can read
in the manual that it is forbidden to run REBEL 10 in any computer-computer
tournament and publish the results without his permission. We do not think
that this can be legally sustained, and the question remains what will he do
when somebody does not follow him. - 10/16/98"
I am in full agreement and I will also deactivate the autoplayer function on
CSTal Windows, for the following reasons:
1. I am convinced there is widespread secret cheating and manipulation by
several programs when running on autoplayer. The disparity in results from
autoplayer session games and manual played games is too high for any other
suitable explanation.
2. I consider that giving certain persons the ability to connect chess
programs together with a serial cable, and then inspect the en masse results
in the morning, has raised to unjustified 'expert' status some very stupid
people. Who knew nothing before and know nothing afterwards. It was not my
intention to elevate such persons to such status by adding autoplayer
functionality to CSTal.
3. I think the results of autoplayer tournaments, and their usage in
argument after argument, perverts the topic of computer chess onto one thing
and one thing only, which progam can beat other programs in massive,
potentially cheated, sessions, in which the actual quality of the chess goes
unnoticed and unremarked. I find this destructive of intelligent debate and
destructive of all the other features, styles, methods which have been
introduced into programs.
4. I think the certain persons, motivated by hatred or whatever, are using
autoplayer results in order to try and attack specific programs, programming
companies and other testers. It was never my intention that any program I
wrote would be used in this way.
Additionally, in my case, and in the case of Rebel's programmer, we can both
set any licence conditions on our products as we like. If a purchaser or
tester feels the licence conditions are not to his taste, his remedy is to
return the program for a refund. This is nothing new and is inherent in the
licence of use mechanism by which software is sold. CSTal licence will also
ban its unauthorised usage in computer-computer tournaments and publication
of such results. ICC usage will not be affected.
Further, last year I was asked by Steven Schwartz of ICD to send, at my
expense, two sample copies of CSTal to Enrique Irazoqui and Fernando
Villegas for review purposes.
Enrique Irazoqui did not test or run the program for six months because "he
didn't have a SVGA card on his computer". Subsequently, to my knowledge, he
has not reviewed the program; but, instead, despite receiving the product as
a trusted friend, has, in my opinion, merely used the free-of-charge review
sample to generate computer-computer games which he has then used to attack
both myself and Thorsten Czub.
Moritz Berger, also on a trusted friend basis, has received samples for
review and testing. He has also used these samples for producing series of
test games and results which he then uses to attack myself and Thorsten
Czub.
Needless to say, these attacks take place on the CCC board to which neither
myself, nor Thorsten, has any right of reply.
Neither of Irazoqui nor Berger has a licence to behave in this manner; and
given that they are both guilty of ensuring that both myself and Thorsten
are banned from the CCC, I hereby inform them that their use of CSTal free
sampes, provided on a friendly basis, in this manner is outside of the scope
of their licence. And, in the case of any doubt, I hereby revoke their
licence to make any further usage of these samples.
Irazoqui, ICD and Berger are hereby informed that they should immediately
destroy any copies in their possession; and provide Oxford Softworks with a
suitably signed Certificate of Destruction.
Thank you.
Chris Whittington
Dirk Frickenschmidt
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Chris,
this was quite a revealing post from you who according to his own
words regards himself as someone opposing any forms of authority and
authoritarian style :-)
It contained some interesting news, for example that you today tend to
publish CSTal Win, after agreeing in former posts with Thorsten that
it should probably be more like something of a higher education
project for a small, private group of truly enlightened people.
Or have I misunderstood your former view?
I already had wondered why you two are talking so much in public and
publishing so many games from a program you wanted to keep private.
Now I understand that you probably won't and the former publishing
makes some sense to me. :-)
But from your letter I see that publishing CSTal Windows will cause
some other serious problems.
For example: what if you sell this program and it will among others
fall in the hands of all those ignorant bean counter mortals with two
computers and an RS232 cable? Unbelievable...
Not like the smart ones who can spare enough time every day to be able
to spend many nice hours staring at computer terminals and receiving
invaluable insights from seeing variation after variation displayed,
while giving in each move by hand with this real craftsmanship
expertise of the good old kind, thus finally reaching true expert
status. ;-)
To give you a hint: a slightly more intelligent form of getting the
same insights is having autoplayer games played, browse through the
games and *then* analyze only the more interesting parts while looking
at evaluations. This has the advantage of sparing considerable time.
Of course not for someone who loves the other way even more than TV
;-)
As I further read from you, it seems to be advisable rather to claim
cheating from autoplayers anyway, than to allow that CSTal Win might
be tested in enough autoplay games to finally get some statistical
information. :-)
All this even if up to now *nothing* of a hint exits for such cheating
mechanisms which programmers like you should be able to detect easily,
if they ever existed (just buy Junior5 and test it). But don't bother,
as long as the cheating claim looks useful, there's no need for any
evidence, and claiming cheating may be enough for the proper
purpose...
Finally I am rather curious to see which Microsoft-like legal document
I would have to sign buying your new program?
- Promising not to publish autoplayer games and results if I ever
wanted to use the device?
- If I ever did be punished by writing 100 times "Nasty little bean
counters are not allowed to misuse a splendid little program"?
- Send back such funny declarations back to Oxford softworks before
getting my secret number for going on playing the next three months or
even be admitted for some private autoplaying in dark rooms? :-)))
Quite amused by this revelation
Regards
from Dirk
User77568
>On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:00:47 +0100, "Chris Whittington"
><chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>this was quite a revealing post from you who according to his own
>words regards himself as someone opposing any forms of authority and
>authoritarian style :-)
Hi. This is a reveiling post from a German priest. A priest always ready to
neglect the words of God but following some human masters of war.
I, for one, am not a priest. What I read in the post of Mr. Whittington was a
great conflict. A great confusion. And I read a cry for "help".
Chris is convinced that "cheaing" is possible with the autoplayer tool. More,
Chris says that the difference in results is too big between autoplayed games
of Fritz and manually played games.
I don't say that I believe this. I'm even convinced that the differing results
have a completely different reason. But I don't come along and write some kind
of hatred against Chris.
I think - as a priest -- I wouldn't do that either. What I would do? I would
try to come into a debate with Chris and then trying ro understand exactly what
he meant. Then I would try to make my own points.
In dejanews.com I read something from our German priest that surprised me. It
was during a little war between Ed Schroeder and Rolf. The priest tried to
behave like a "party soldier" (Rolf) and he wrote something like:
"Rolf, you must see that Ed is a businessman. And if Ed writes something this
has a higher validity, because Ed wouldn't risk the damage that would be caused
by some foolish statements."
I don't believe that Chris has a point with his assumptions. But from that
German priest I would expect a more respectful attitude for a British
businessman. And even if Chris was wrong we should help him out of the
situation where he feels threatened by (real or not) cheats that could result
in unfair advantages of his business competitors. But we can only help him with
rational arguments and not hatred.
No, as a priest I would even write a helping email (!) to Chris and declare him
my readiness for support.
The way this German priest behaved should remind us again of his (virtually)
murderous activity as a fascist politician on CCC. apparently this priest is
suffering fro a kind of suppression of certain emotional feelings in his work
or family life so that he has to find a kind of way-out here in a computerchess
group. I would say that this is still better than other activities priests are
famous for. But then I'm not an expert in psychology or criminology.
Regards
>It contained some interesting news, for example that you today tend to
>publish CSTal Win, after agreeing in former posts with Thorsten that
>it should probably be more like something of a higher education
>project for a small, private group of truly enlightened people.=20
>Or have I misunderstood your former view?
>I already had wondered why you two are talking so much in public and
>publishing so many games from a program you wanted to keep private.
>Now I understand that you probably won't and the former publishing
>makes some sense to me. :-)
>But from your letter I see that publishing CSTal Windows will cause
>some other serious problems.
>=46or example: what if you sell this program and it will among others
>fall in the hands of all those ignorant bean counter mortals with two
>computers and an RS232 cable? Unbelievable...
>Not like the smart ones who can spare enough time every day to be able
>to spend many nice hours staring at computer terminals and receiving
>invaluable insights from seeing variation after variation displayed,
>while giving in each move by hand with this real craftsmanship
>expertise of the good old kind, thus finally reaching true expert
>status. ;-)
>To give you a hint: a slightly more intelligent form of getting the
>same insights is having autoplayer games played, browse through the
>games and *then* analyze only the more interesting parts while looking
>at evaluations. This has the advantage of sparing considerable time.
>Of course not for someone who loves the other way even more than TV
>;-)
>As I further read from you, it seems to be advisable rather to claim
>cheating from autoplayers anyway, than to allow that CSTal Win might
>be tested in enough autoplay games to finally get some statistical
>information. :-)
>All this even if up to now *nothing* of a hint exits for such cheating
>mechanisms which programmers like you should be able to detect easily,
>if they ever existed (just buy Junior5 and test it). But don't bother,
>as long as the cheating claim looks useful, there's no need for any
>evidence, and claiming cheating may be enough for the proper
>purpose...
>=46inally I am rather curious to see which Microsoft-like legal document
>I would have to sign buying your new program?
>- Promising not to publish autoplayer games and results if I ever
>wanted to use the device?=20
>- If I ever did be punished by writing 100 times "Nasty little bean
>counters are not allowed to misuse a splendid little program"?=20
>- Send back such funny declarations back to Oxford softworks before
>getting my secret number for going on playing the next three months or
>even be admitted for some private autoplaying in dark rooms? :-)))=20
Chris Whittington
Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote in message <362ae1d2...@news.space.net>...
>Hi Chris,
[ Prissy Prussian Priest's sneering sarcastic slime deleted ]
>Finally I am rather curious to see which Microsoft-like legal document
>I would have to sign buying your new program?
You don't have the opportunity to sign anything. You are offered nothing. I
do not wish to make any agreement, licence or otherwise with the likes of
you. Frickenschmidt. You forget that suppliers are not impelled to make
licence agreements with those it does it not wish to. I am not remotely
interested in your money; and willingly give up the opportunity to take it
from you. You are denied a licence of anything I write. Irazoqui and Berger
likewise. Lifelong ban.
Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote in message <362440a6...@news.space.net>...
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:55:02 +0100, "Chris Whittington"
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Chris,
[ more slime deleted ]
>But you yourself were busy escalating things, finally calling us
>"little Hitlers" and the like (else comparing us with Stalin or
>whomever). I didn't accept this escalation and finally saw no other
>way than being consequent.
Another example of your lieing style.
You've been informed a thousand times that little hitler == petty burocrat.
Your prissy complaint on me appears based on the above triviality, which you
seek, self-justifyingly, to elevate to some excuse for your obnoxious
behaviour. So you have to try and hang on to it, in the face of your
stupidity. This merely confirms you as a liar.
Just to confirm for unknowing readers. You were called a little Hitler in
Founders Group email. Not anywhere else. You like to think that you own and
control all output on "rgcc, ccc, the bbc or The Times" (your stupid
comment, I believe ?); such that anyone who dares even to insult you there
or anywhere else should be banned from ccc. Tyrant.
>>5. You delivered your now hallmark public friendship ending.
>Hallmarks usually have bigger proportions and refer to more serious
>issues.
I take your public friendship endings, designed solely to hurt and
humiliate, as far more serious than any other action. Again it's an example
of your lieing style to try and trivialise your actions.
[ more sneering sarcasms snipped ]
>>9. Later you carried out your now hallmark public friendship ending with
him
>>also.
>You already referred to the like in point 5. See my answer above.
>>10. You then conspired with others to entrap Thorsten by baiting him
>>publicly with thinly veiled accusations that he was cheating in his
>>tournament.
>a) Conspiration theories most times tell more about the mind imagining
>them than about reality.
>What made you believe in such a theory in this case?
>And on what is your strong allegation based?
>b) I *never* accused Thorsten of cheating in his tournament.
1. After your (carried out with the same persons involved in your later
entrapment expulsion) working-for-chessbase flame battle, you publicly
abused and humiliated Thorsten with your second declaration of friendship
breaking.
2. Thorsten then perfectly calmly got on with his tournament.
3. Thinly veiled accusations of cheating were cast at him. One of your
fellow bullies was criticised publicly by Moreland moderator for making
these veiled cheat accusations. The bully, however, has experience with word
usage, and denied it. But the damage was done.
4. More accusations followed. One particularly yobbish bully colleague of
yours stated out loud his cheating accusation. Thorsten was obviously very
disturbed by these comments and reacted.
5. And as this was continuing, your reactions ? To continue hammering
Thorsten with your own agenda. As if your agenda was somehow separate and
distinct from all the other events going on. In truth the four of you were
mounting a combined attack on several fronts on Thorsten; with you
pretending that your concerns were quite distinct.
6. I refer you to Dailey moderators comment: "we know Thorsten was being
goaded and baited". You were one of the goaders and baiters.
7. With escalation, you, and your bully colleagues, were demanding
Thorsten's expulsion from CCC.
8. I refer you to Dailey moderator's comment: "we were being tyrannised by
persons complaining about Thorsten". You were one of the tyrants.
9. Finally, you got your way, and Thorsten was expelled.
No man is an island unto himself.
========================
And now you try and make out this was all a separate bunch of actions. No
decision to 'stop' or 'get rid of' Thorsten beforehand; following the
"working for Chessbase" flame war you participated in. No, or course not.
The Franco-Prussians neither speak together, nor share the same agenda, nor
communicate by private email.
I don't believe you. You're lieing.
And then you try to make out you didn't read or observe the other attacks on
Thorsten. That your endless prissying goading and baiting attacks on him
were separated.
I dont believe you. You're lieing.
And then you try to make out that all that matters is what Thorsten posted
about you. That this is independent from the goading and baiting carried out
on him. And that he alone must be expelled. That you alone must be treated
somehow special and separated from the rest.
No man is an island unto himself.
Then you would have us believe that you made your tyrannical emails to the
moderators to have Thorsten expelled, entirely separated from the other
tyrannical emails trying to get Thorsten expelled.
I don't believe you. You're lieing.
I say it again. In order to get your own back over the working-for-chessbase
flame war, you engaged in a pre-meditated entrapment and expulsion campaign
on Thorsten. You chose the most effective method possible which was to get
Thorsten to expel himself. To do this simply needed veiled accusations which
could be denied later; persistently hammering him with whingeing complaints
when he reacted as he surely would; followed by mass complaints and threats
to tyrannise the moderators into expelling him.
I tell you again. I consider you to be a piece of nazi shit. And a liar.
Chris Whittington
Phil Innes
getting my secret number for going on playing the next three months or
even be admitted for some private autoplaying in dark rooms? :-)))
no sex please, we're british : |
Phil Innes
Hey! Taunter!
Don't spew your stuff in here again, and then run off.
You have any desire to help?
What do you do in your community?
Laugh at the misfortune of others?
That's what you do here.
Can you not, man, have a *decent* conversation with other
people?
This is the foundation of any civil intercourse,
as ani thule no
Phil Innes
Dirk Frickenschmidt
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Chris,
once more you don't offer much more than a continuous inflation of
insults and insinuations, beginning offending and ending in well known
gutter level finally.
>
>Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote in message <362ae1d2...@news.space.net>...
>On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:00:47 +0100, "Chris Whittington"
><chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi Chris,
>
Overture:
One more time offending allusions to my profession instead of
arguments.
Poor style.
Will you write in your next post once more that *I* were speaking of
my profession all the time because I mentioned that *you* performed
further abuse with it?
>[ Prissy Prussian Priest's sneering sarcastic slime deleted ]
>>Finally I am rather curious to see which Microsoft-like legal document
>>I would have to sign buying your new program?
>You don't have the opportunity to sign anything. You are offered nothing. I
>do not wish to make any agreement, licence or otherwise with the likes of
>you. Frickenschmidt. You forget that suppliers are not impelled to make
>licence agreements with those it does it not wish to. I am not remotely
>interested in your money; and willingly give up the opportunity to take it
>from you. You are denied a licence of anything I write. Irazoqui and Berger
>likewise. Lifelong ban.
I know of some people who probably will smile seeing you utter
"lifelong bans" in a tone of obviously seriously meant gravity ;-)
Don't you feel how this is rapidly drifting towards real satire?
Just for reasons of curiosity: how will your desire work out
practically? I will probably be able to buy any program available in
public, including any new public versions of CSTal. So what?
Or are you *seriously* planning to control the use of the program in a
way I rather wrote about ironically??
User having to sign contracts or the like before using your program???
If so, is this supposed to be a new, special version of "Red Army
Faction against the Prussians", like you nowadays subscribe your
posts?
I mean, some really new, *very* special version of anti-authoritarian
spirit?
>
>Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote in message <362440a6...@news.space.net>...
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:55:02 +0100, "Chris Whittington"
><chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Chris,
>
>[ more slime deleted ]
>
>>But you yourself were busy escalating things, finally calling us
>>"little Hitlers" and the like (else comparing us with Stalin or
>>whomever). I didn't accept this escalation and finally saw no other
>>way than being consequent.
>
>Another example of your lieing style.
Have you called us this way or not?
>You've been informed a thousand times that little hitler == petty burocrat.
Yes, and you wrote other explaining stuff like:
"It's not my fault if germans want to wring hands in guilt over their
parents and grandparents every time hitler, or mengele, or goebbels
gets mentioned."
I neither follow the first nor the last way of explaining away what
you said. I would accept your taking it back without much ado, if I
were not forced again and again to see how you enjoy adding even more
violent offenses of this kind.
>Your prissy complaint on me appears based on the above triviality, which you
>seek, self-justifyingly, to elevate to some excuse for your obnoxious
>behaviour. So you have to try and hang on to it, in the face of your
>stupidity. This merely confirms you as a liar.
Note: if someone reminds you of what you definitely said in an
offending group email this is normally no base on which he could be
called "a liar".
>Just to confirm for unknowing readers. You were called a little Hitler in
>Founders Group email. Not anywhere else. You like to think that you own and
>control all output on "rgcc, ccc, the bbc or The Times" (your stupid
>comment, I believe ?); such that anyone who dares even to insult you there
>or anywhere else should be banned from ccc. Tyrant.
No, I said I personally would not be willing to meet someone in CCC,
like nothing had happened, who is calling me "little Hitler" in
public. I would have resigned from CCC in such a case.
Does not seem too threatening or tyrannical to me. :-)
Anyway, meanwhile I learned some.
Like: it may be impossible to avoid insulting people in some areas of
life. For example here in rgcc there are constantly some offensive
abusers. I learned that it is *my* fault to take them too serious.
Considered this, I nowadays won't mind Mr. Tueschen or "user 7..."
saying whatever one of them :-) likes even on BBC any longer.
No problem any more.
But I still find it relaxing that CCC is a lot more peaceful and
respectful place.
>
>>>5. You delivered your now hallmark public friendship ending.
>>Hallmarks usually have bigger proportions and refer to more serious
>>issues.
>
>I take your public friendship endings, designed solely to hurt and
>humiliate, as far more serious than any other action. Again it's an example
>of your lieing style to try and trivialise your actions.
A "friend" tried to denounce my independant testing status by falsely
claiming I were (present tense, unlimited time) "working for
Chessbase" plus *therefore* not interested in finding out "the truth"
(hinting at cheating just like you insinuate nowadays) about the
Fritz5 autoplayer.
This is perhaps a normal form of friendship according to your
standards, but not to mine.
When I then said in public to this former friend: consider our
friendship as ended, that is the utmost form of humiliation???
I admitted it was wrong and pathetic, spoken in big disappointment.
But hardly much more...
>
[ more redundant stuff of this kind snipped ]
>>b) I *never* accused Thorsten of cheating in his tournament.
>
>
>1. After your (carried out with the same persons involved in your later
>entrapment expulsion) working-for-chessbase flame battle, you publicly
>abused and humiliated Thorsten with your second declaration of friendship
>breaking.
>
>2. Thorsten then perfectly calmly got on with his tournament.
>
>3. Thinly veiled accusations of cheating were cast at him.
Not from me.
>One of your
>fellow bullies was criticised publicly by Moreland moderator for making
>these veiled cheat accusations.
>The bully, however, has experience with word
>usage, and denied it. But the damage was done.
Your talking of "bullies" is of no interest to me.
If Mr. Tueschen regards people as "party soldiers" for matters of
enemy picture convenience, I can live with it, knwoing how absurd
these conspiration phantasies are compared to reality.
If I were organized in "soldier parties" or "bully collegia" I would
probably know of it. :-)
So please be so kind and spare me the like.
>4. More accusations followed.
Namely? And from whom?
>One particularly yobbish bully colleague of
>yours stated out loud his cheating accusation. Thorsten was obviously very
>disturbed by these comments and reacted.
Once more: if you feel free to call someone "yobbish bully colleague
of yours" this does not more than mirror your state of mind while
doing so.
If you want to relate me to other people, you could name it in a
conrete way, not forgetting to name some convincing reasons for doing
so.
And if you want to make me resonsible for what others did - or perhaps
rather did not - how shall this make any sense?
>5. And as this was continuing, your reactions ? To continue hammering
>Thorsten with your own agenda. As if your agenda was somehow separate and
>distinct from all the other events going on. In truth the four of you were
>mounting a combined attack on several fronts on Thorsten; with you
>pretending that your concerns were quite distinct.
Once more: When I disputed with Thorsten (and not with ad-hominems
from my side but continuously and increasingly from Thorsten's), what
in heaven gives you *any* right to relate that to what other posters
disputed with him. I rather remember that the other way round:
Thorsten becoming personal towards several posters naming them
together.
The rest rather reminds me of "the Russians are coming" senile
conspiration theories of the fifties than of serious arguments (the
latter being replaced completely by prejudice).
>6. I refer you to Dailey moderators comment: "we know Thorsten was being
>goaded and baited". You were one of the goaders and baiters.
Don Dailey never told me or others he regarded me as "goader and
baiter". If he would have done so, I would surely have asked him to
clarify such a claim.
But you should not confuse your own evaluations with those of the
moderators.
>7. With escalation, you, and your bully colleagues, were demanding
>Thorsten's expulsion from CCC.
Again untrue.
I wrote to the moderators that it is our common goal to keep Thorsten
online with unoffensive ontopics, even with some asides here and
there. But I would not find lasting ad-hominem abuse acceptable in a
board founded for exactly the reason to avoid this.
Not more, not less.
>8. I refer you to Dailey moderator's comment: "we were being tyrannised by
>persons complaining about Thorsten". You were one of the tyrants.
I don't know what Don meant. You don't either.
You just interpret completely arbitrarily again.
>9. Finally, you got your way, and Thorsten was expelled.
Thorsten finally got it *his* way. He and *nobody* else is responsible
for how he acted and how he finally *forced* the moderators to react.
Anything else looks to me like apologetic myths.
>
>No man is an island unto himself.
>========================
A wise word
>And now you try and make out this was all a separate bunch of actions.
I don't have to try anything.
It is you who is "trying" something:
namely to fabricate a conspiration theory.
In contrast to you I *know* what I did or did not.
>No decision to 'stop' or 'get rid of' Thorsten beforehand; following the
>"working for Chessbase" flame war you participated in. No, or course not.
>The Franco-Prussians neither speak together, nor share the same agenda, nor
>communicate by private email.
>
>I don't believe you. You're lieing.
Each time you happen not to believe me this probably makes me a liar?
>
>And then you try to make out you didn't read or observe the other attacks on
>Thorsten. That your endless prissying goading and baiting attacks on him
>were separated.
>
>I dont believe you. You're lieing.
see above
>
>And then you try to make out that all that matters is what Thorsten posted
>about you. That this is independent from the goading and baiting carried out
>on him.
After I did *nothing* to provoke Thorsten before his first attack and
then my only fault was to contradict some of his points, yes:
what matters to me are the ad-hominems Thorsten posted about me.
>And that he alone must be expelled. That you alone must be treated
>somehow special and separated from the rest.
In which way???
>No man is an island unto himself.
Yes, you mentioned this already. So what?
>
>Then you would have us believe that you made your tyrannical emails
Namely which tyrannical emails?
>to the
>moderators to have Thorsten expelled, entirely separated from the other
>tyrannical emails trying to get Thorsten expelled.
>
>I don't believe you. You're lieing.
see above :-)
>
>I say it again.
Yes, obviously.
>In order to get your own back over the working-for-chessbase
>flame war, you engaged in a pre-meditated entrapment and expulsion campaign
>on Thorsten.
>You chose the most effective method possible which was to get
>Thorsten to expel himself. To do this simply needed veiled accusations which
>could be denied later; persistently hammering him with whingeing complaints
>when he reacted as he surely would; followed by mass complaints and threats
>to tyrannise the moderators into expelling him.
This seriously is your conspiration theory?
Finally after the offensive overture at the beginning, pure poor
Whittington gutter manner at the end again:
>I tell you again. I consider you to be a piece of nazi shit. And a liar.
>
>Chris Whittington
>
You may continue this thread here on your own, I won't.
Dirk
Dirk Frickenschmidt
wrote:
Phil,
if I should ever be in need of some always reproachful know-all
jumping on me regularly, I will let you know. So far I am not.
>Just for reasons of curiosity: how will your desire work out....
>
> Hey! Taunter!
> Don't spew your stuff in here again, and then run off.
Please note: I come and go in here as my time allows and as I wish.
And I will not stay in any silly thread as long as others may wish.
Your way of adressing me will probably not change anything about this.
> You have any desire to help?
Yes, I have the desire to help those who need help.
And yes, occasionally I do oppose those self-compliant abusers, who
misuse usenet for offensive ad-hominems and wrong insinuations most of
the time.
And yes, I am still able to discern one from the other.
Imagine: perhaps I even do not need help from you in doing so, though
you yourself might feel as an irreplacable teacher in such matters.
> What do you do in your community?
The same: help those who need help and oppose "ellbow people" who
think they can push away others by becoming impudent and claim some
extra rights (in rgcc like calling them names or bombarding them with
false insinuations).
> Laugh at the misfortune of others?
> That's what you do here.
Pardon???
Namely which "misfortune of others" do I laugh about?
Perhaps the "misfortune" of people being handicapped enough to call
others names like "a piece of nazi shit" or comparing people in this
computer chess hobby group to Eichmann???
Or the "misfortune" of people regarding themselves as kind of higher
intelligence programmers/testers while the rest of the world should
regard themselves as "bean counters" or even "idiots" and be thankful
they are still adressed at all?
Perhaps you sort your own world of values or at least some of them a
little bit before adressing me in the way you do.
> Can you not, man, have a *decent* conversation with other
> people?
This is exactly what I have most of the time, with most people.
Less here in rgcc with certain people who tend to introduce themselves
as I referred to above.
And less with people who jump on me arbitrarily for making this
difference, or for not having the desire to talk more extensive with
them especially.
> This is the foundation of any civil intercourse,
>
> as ani thule no
>
> Phil Innes
>
Then you could begin practising what you preach right away,
even while adressing me?
Regards from
Dirk
Har...@t-online.de
quoting a mail from chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk concerning Autoplayers and Bean-Counters
> I am in full agreement and I will also deactivate the autoplayer function on
> CSTal Windows, for the following reasons:
>
> 1. I am convinced there is widespread secret cheating and manipulation by
> several programs when running on autoplayer. The disparity in results from
> autoplayer session games and manual played games is too high for any other
> suitable explanation.
How in your opinion does autoplayer-cheating work??
Right now there is no evidence for this harsh complaint.
> 4. I think the certain persons, motivated by hatred or whatever, are using
> autoplayer results in order to try and attack specific programs, programming
> companies and other testers. It was never my intention that any program I
> wrote would be used in this way.
??
I have never seen anyone ATTACKING (!) a program because of auto232 games.
> Enrique Irazoqui did not test or run the program for six months because "he
> didn't have a SVGA card on his computer". Subsequently, to my knowledge, he
> has not reviewed the program; but, instead, despite receiving the product as
> a trusted friend, has, in my opinion, merely used the free-of-charge review
> sample to generate computer-computer games which he has then used to attack
> both myself and Thorsten Czub.
AFAIR CST auto232 results were only posted when Thorsten (tried to)
presented only winning games of CST what may lead to a wrong impression.
> Needless to say, these attacks take place on the CCC board to which neither
> myself, nor Thorsten, has any right of reply.
If you would behave correctly and keep ontopic you like all others would
have the chance to answer.
Harald Faber
Phil Innes
> people?
This is exactly what I have most of the time, with most people.
Less here in rgcc with certain people who tend to introduce themselves
as I referred to above.
<which I snipped, Phil>
And less with people who jump on me arbitrarily for making this
difference, or for not having the desire to talk more extensive with
them especially.
We are all part of the problem, and of the solution, Dirk.
Trouble is, we are all so clever, we never quite have time to
listen to each other.
Want to talk about stuff? Lets do it.
> This is the foundation of any civil intercourse,
>
> as ani thule no
>
> Phil Innes
>
Then you could begin practising what you preach right away,
even while adressing me?
Eh bien! see above. Let he who throws the first stone be
condemned to play the Latvian Gambit for 10 games straight!
I know it is difficult for German people to discuss matters of
historical difficulty. I will not go into that if you don't
wish to.
I will also not make any parade of what you do for a living -
my good friend is a minister. I often ask her what she has
done recently , and she says, "nothing." But this "nothing" is
like the "nothing" in King Lear (you know it?) and it turns
out that she has sat by some bedside all night, with some old
person no-one knows, and the previous day was in comforting
the bereaved.
I think this makes for a different insight into people than is
common, and she is spared very little in what she sees. Her
view of the world is not the same as a Disney movie.
What has happened here Dirk? People are savage to each other.
Is it dissapointment that life (even chess) is not like a
Disney movie, that all sorts of influences pervade it. There
is no true science, not much cooperation between the big
players - perhaps some strategic alliances - but far from any
corcordat.
Chris is now an outcast. He admits, for his own part (lets
leave his admission for others aside for a moment, eh?!) that
he did not act well. Isn't he a little brave to do what he has
done? He is honest now, but very angry, and like angry men
everywhere it is difficult to stop fighting after someone has
taken a chunk out of your ear!
I write too much. Do not feel obliged to follow what I have
written, write as you will.
Cordially, Phil Innes
michael adams
Britischer,i have to levy the crass American media practice of casting
such "nice"chaps as bad'uns in favour of more intelligent
Arnies,Clauds,Stallions etc.These last guys are just so much more
deserving of Hero-Worship.I mean you got Hugh Grant,George Michael
etc.who seem capable of all sorts of strange hanky-panky sexy
things,never dreamed of by decent Americans yeuch,yeuch.
m.
HWegner310
Hi Chris,
When the autoplayer will be not included, does it mean, that the support for
pc-boards is also stopped?
I told you, that when there will be a support for pc-boards I will buy your
program, but when there will be no support you can earn no money from me.
Best greetings,
Hannu Wegner
Chris Whittington
HWegner310 wrote in message
<19981021131911...@ngol04.aol.com>...
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>When the autoplayer will be not included, does it mean, that the support
for
>pc-boards is also stopped?
Interesting point. We could try and enable auto232 if we detect a board ...
?
>
>I told you, that when there will be a support for pc-boards I will buy your
>program, but when there will be no support you can earn no money from me.
Money not important :)
More important is that you try the program.
Chris Whittington
>
>Best greetings,
>Hannu Wegner
>
>
Phil Innes
actually, we are rather "awfully" english
English,so much so that as a
Britischer,
no such thing old chum, americanism that is, yer "Britisher,"
or yer Cherman
i have to levy the crass American media practice of casting
such "nice"chaps as bad'uns in favour of more intelligent
Arnies,Clauds,Stallions etc.
Mickey, Claude is a bit of a frog, nan ja?
These last guys are just so much more
deserving of Hero-Worship.
Sadly I am over 40, and its not the worship I resent, its the
heros. Never mind. What I wanted to say was something of the
order of how long can you keep these trolls up before
succumbing to your real interest? Are you playing much chess
then? (no-one seems to talk with you, and I am feeling
companionable tonight.) I was talking with this Russian cove
the other night, quite a learned chess 'ed he was too, and 'e
sed, 'e sed, look phil-you, its a bad boy issa goina do gud
the chess, is necessary to have plenty "attitude" to WILL to
win. All these (expleted) boys have no gud strength in will.
Easy to tell what 'e was getting at, eh, Michael?
Ask yer Uncle Chrissy the same.
Yer got ter get up in the mornin' and put in yer time, then do
it over the board squire.Its like yer mix of yer want to win
an yer skills, innit.
Swot my frend thought anyroads.
I mean you got Hugh Grant,George Michael
etc.who seem capable of all sorts of strange hanky-panky sexy
things,never dreamed of by decent Americans yeuch,yeuch.
m.
A dull crowd I agree, but they have introduced to world
culture the hamburger.
A pity you responded, not Dirk. He is slanging it out with Sir
Chris Wellington. Sad innit? Pair a pillocks.
Phil
HWegner310
Thank you for your answer, Chris.
>>When the autoplayer will be not included, does it mean, that the support
>for
>>pc-boards is also stopped?
>
>Interesting point. We could try and enable auto232 if we detect a board ...
>?
I do not know if this is possible. For you it could be a way to include a
driver for the new DGT-board as ChessBase did with Fritz 5.
Anyway I do not understand the whole discussion why not not to include the
autodriver 232 for Windows. When I understood you correct it is not you fear
that it could be possible, that someone coud cheat with this feature. I could
understand your side when it would be still a hard work to include this
auto232-driver. But you already did this job. Isn't it just nonsens to take
this feature away again? I think there are some other CSTal-fans who would like
to use this autoplayerfunction just for fun. Don't forget that Computerchess is
just a hobby. In my opinion there is no need to keep this kind of things in
secret, donät you think so?
>
>>
>>I told you, that when there will be a support for pc-boards I will buy your
>>program, but when there will be no support you can earn no money from me.
>
>Money not important :)
>
>More important is that you try the program.
This is one more reason, why I don't understand your descission. So your main
interesr is not to make money with your program as Ed Schroeder. In this way I
understand Ed Schroeder, because after the "victory" against Anand he is only
in a position where he only can lose when Rebel 10 would not get the first
place in the SSDF-list.
I would buy CSTal for windows immidiately when auto232 and sopport for
pc-boards are included. My only interest is to have some fun with this program.
It is a pitty that only a hand full of computerchessenthusiasts are getting the
chance to play some autoplayergames. All other CSTal-fans only get the half
fun.
Of course the decision not to make a special SSDF-autoplayer for Fritz caused a
lot of problems. Ed Schroeder does have an excuse now not to include the
autoplayerfeature. Now you are the next one who does not want to include the
autoplayer. In the future I see more programs without autoplayer, more engines
for Fritz and some exotic hobbyprogams which are compatible to winboard. The
SSDF will die and a lot of people will lose the interest in computerchess.
So please reasses your decision.
Best greetings,
Hannu Wegner
mclane
> Isn't it just nonsens to take
>this feature away again?
We must make sure that THIS DEVICE DOES NEVER FALL INTO ENEMY HAND
:-)))) as matthias wuellenweber said about fritz5. :-)))
> I think there are some other CSTal-fans who would like
>to use this autoplayerfunction just for fun.
thank chessbase for this step backwards. They began this war with
breaking the ssdf-gentleman-agreement.
>This is one more reason, why I don't understand your descission. So your main
>interesr is not to make money with your program as Ed Schroeder. In this way I
>understand Ed Schroeder, because after the "victory" against Anand he is only
>in a position where he only can lose when Rebel 10 would not get the first
>place in the SSDF-list.
?!?!?!?!?!
Nonsense. Ed has never failed to compete against others. He always
competed against the others. it is chessBase that is afraid that we
have autoplayers and would find out that their program loses ...
>I would buy CSTal for windows immidiately when auto232 and sopport for
>pc-boards are included. My only interest is to have some fun with this program.
>It is a pitty that only a hand full of computerchessenthusiasts are getting the
>chance to play some autoplayergames. All other CSTal-fans only get the half
>fun.
Buy cstal dos. It has autoplayer-support. The ELITE-thinking that is
been done in the chessbase-fritz5-scandal is exactly the
elite-thinking of these guys. So in fact their actions represent very
good their perverted waldorf-ideas about the society.
>Of course the decision not to make a special SSDF-autoplayer for Fritz caused a
>lot of problems. Ed Schroeder does have an excuse now not to include the
>autoplayerfeature. Now you are the next one who does not want to include the
>autoplayer. In the future I see more programs without autoplayer, more engines
>for Fritz and some exotic hobbyprogams which are compatible to winboard. The
>SSDF will die and a lot of people will lose the interest in computerchess.
The ssdf dies because they make to many mistakes. The whole structure
of these organisations is old-fashioned. like the ICCA and the DFB and
the IOC and other stupid organisations where a few old guys
(seilschaften) control anything and stop evolution by not allowing
younger people to take responsibility.
But - there comes a day in any cybernetic-system when the system
shifts. You can see this in any structure, the GDR, the BRD and in the
CDU. There comes a day when the whole structure dies. And the old
dinosaurs die very fast. And suddenly anything is possible. Because
the old paradigm has died, and new values and fresh people stream into
the society.
normal cybernetic stuff. Happens the whole day.
best wishes
mclane
HWegner310
Im Artikel <70tpk5$tav$6...@steve.prima.de>, mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrotet:
>> Isn't it just nonsens to take
>>this feature away again?
>
>We must make sure that THIS DEVICE DOES NEVER FALL INTO ENEMY HAND
>:-)))) as matthias wuellenweber said about fritz5. :-)))
>
>> I think there are some other CSTal-fans who would like
>>to use this autoplayerfunction just for fun.
>
>thank chessbase for this step backwards. They began this war with
>breaking the ssdf-gentleman-agreement.
>
>>This is one more reason, why I don't understand your descission. So your
>main
>>interest is not to make money with your program as Ed Schroeder. In this way
Hi,
I think, you overestimate the influence of ChessBase. The whole story about the
secret autoplayer for Fritz 5 was only important, because it was made important
by people who did not want to beleave that Fritz 5 is really a strong program.
don't understand me wrong, of course I would like to see a published
Fritz5-autoplayer. Without this autoplayer/chess 232 feature I just lost my
interest in this program because other programs support pc-boards and the
autoplayer. BTW Junior 5 and the engines Crafty 15.18,15.19, 15.20 and Exchess
2.45 are compatible to the pc-board Chess 232. This is the reason why I use
Junior 5 and why I don't use Fritz 5.
Don't forget that Chess is for the most people just a hobby and not a war
between ChessBase and the rest of the world. Don't take the whole thing so
seriosly. I only think, that it would be fine to play against CSTal for Windows
on a real Chessboard (pc-board). Some years ago I played Chess much more in
serios tournaments. Now I do not have the time anymore. But sometimes when I
like to play some games I switch on my computer, take a pc-board and play some
"Blitz"- (10-30 minutes) games. For me this is in the moment the only
possibility to train my practical play. You see that my interest is to have
some fun with different programs. In my point of view it seems to be somehow
childish to say that ChessBase keep there autoplayer secret and this is the
reason why I keep my autoplayer secret too. I ask you: who is winning something
when the autoplayerfeature for CSTal (win) or for Rebel 10 will be not
published? Only ChessBase gets more publicity and the costumer is the idiot in
the whole story, don't you think so?
Best greetings,
Hannu Wegner
P.S.: I do own CSTal (dos). The bad thing is, that it is not compatible to the
Chess 232-board. But it is possible to use it with the mephisto/saitek-board.
But this board is clearly to worst pc-board when you compare it to the other
existing pc-board.
mclane
>Hi,
>I think, you overestimate the influence of ChessBase. The whole story about the
>secret autoplayer for Fritz 5 was only important, because it was made important
>by people who did not want to beleave that Fritz 5 is really a strong program.
I don't think so.
Fritz can only show STRONG results if doped=manipulated=special
arrangements = special hardware etc.
>don't understand me wrong, of course I would like to see a published
>Fritz5-autoplayer. Without this autoplayer/chess 232 feature I just lost my
>interest in this program because other programs support pc-boards and the
>autoplayer.
I understand.
> BTW Junior 5 and the engines Crafty 15.18,15.19, 15.20 and Exchess
>2.45 are compatible to the pc-board Chess 232. This is the reason why I use
>Junior 5 and why I don't use Fritz 5.
Yup.
>Don't forget that Chess is for the most people just a hobby and not a war
>between ChessBase and the rest of the world.
I don't want to influence the point of view of other people. But i
have my own view. I know the persons involved for a long time. I have
worked with them. I know about their deals. I have collected much data
about them. I worked in SchachNiggemann company. They sold more
ChessBase material than chessbase itself. I know about the data of
SchachNiggemann concerning chessBase. I know about their law-cases. I
have my "sources".
> Don't take the whole thing so
>seriosly.
Do i ?
> I only think, that it would be fine to play against CSTal for Windows
>on a real Chessboard (pc-board). Some years ago I played Chess much more in
>serios tournaments. Now I do not have the time anymore. But sometimes when I
>like to play some games I switch on my computer, take a pc-board and play some
>"Blitz"- (10-30 minutes) games. For me this is in the moment the only
>possibility to train my practical play. You see that my interest is to have
>some fun with different programs. In my point of view it seems to be somehow
>childish to say that ChessBase keep there autoplayer secret and this is the
>reason why I keep my autoplayer secret too. I ask you: who is winning something
>when the autoplayerfeature for CSTal (win) or for Rebel 10 will be not
>published?
WE !
The the programmers who have been betrayed by chessBase with their
hidden autoplayer, will further not implement the autoplayer.
Ed Schroeder, Chris Whittington, i guess also Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
I am sure all the other will follow. The ssdf will have to play their
next games by hand ! :-))) Thanks to chessBase :-)))
> Only ChessBase gets more publicity and the costumer is the idiot in
>the whole story, don't you think so?
The customer is the idiot because chessBase wants this. All the others
do only RE-ACT.
You cannot call them in charge for chessBase customer unfriendly
breaks of agreements.
>Best greetings,
>Hannu Wegner
>P.S.: I do own CSTal (dos). The bad thing is, that it is not compatible to the
>Chess 232-board. But it is possible to use it with the mephisto/saitek-board.
>But this board is clearly to worst pc-board when you compare it to the other
>existing pc-board.
best wishes
mclane