Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Botvinniks Chess Algorithm ??

29 views
Skip to first unread message

brucemo

unread,
Oct 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/5/97
to

Jim Paul wrote:

> Just picked up 'Computers, Chess & Long-Range Planning' by Botvinnik, circa 1968
> and was wondering what progress was made with this "Type-B" approach ??
> What is the current thinking on Type-B ?

It never played in a computer chess tournament. Nor has any game played by his
program ever been published (if someone can offer a counter-example, please post).

Some search trees have been published. These trees are very strange.

He was was still working on this program when he died a year or so ago. His
descendants have appealed for cash in order to keep the project going.

Hans Berliner has written an article that more or less accuses him of fraud.

My personal hypothesis is that the whole thing was a scam of some sort.

Others would know more than I about heavy AI chess programming strategies, but the
two categories don't fit perfectly. Most strong programs aren't strictly type A,
but they are in the spirit of type A.

bruce

Jim Paul

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

Hi all,

Just picked up 'Computers, Chess & Long-Range Planning' by Botvinnik, circa 1968
and was wondering what progress was made with this "Type-B" approach ??
What is the current thinking on Type-B ?

Cheers

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:

>Hans Berliner gave Botvinnik his comeuppance and we should leave it at that
>since Botvinnik is now dead.

That's the way little Jack dreams about science in kindergarten...

The final word was not yet spoken, KK.

You may not, but all of us therefore are interested in possible progress
of the more "knowledge-oriented" approaches.
Whether we speak it out loud or *deep* hidden under a duvet.

Hey, I just saw a nice report about DNA oriented and not AC/DC research
in some micro-biology. Think of that... As the dropletted monster in
"Alien" you'll once have the best cc player in his glassy cage. And
painted a big nose upon children won't be able to detect that it's not a
human...

Let's see if *then* Botvinnik will still be laughed at by the dumb bruce
fortes. Or vice versa. :)

Actual success is often a mixture compositum of big money horse-power
and the (stolen) rest of cc language know-how...

So, if you want to look in the future don't buy a word from bruce, then
try better the originals.

You know what I want? One single game in Paris. Where Ferret is
outplayed not by the opening prep, but by a clear better positional
idea. *Then* it might come in still second... Who cares.


But talking about a genius like Botvinnik with such mean quotes and
hanky panky is premature. Period.

>--
>- -
>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.


Dan Thies

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

On 06 Oct 1997 02:16:36 EDT, "Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca>
wrote:

>I don't really think that Botvinnik meant to fraudently misrepresent
>himself. The problem was that he and his programmers just couldn't get his
>ideas to work, and to keep getting money for the project, he had to present
>something.

Well, what he presented was a claim that he actually had something
working. If he didn't (does anyone seriously believe that he did?)
then he clearly was fraudulently misrepresenting himself. If he was
doing it to get backing, that would seem to be fairly intentional.

Dan

Dan Thies

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

On 6 Oct 1997 02:23:19 GMT, dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Jim Paul)
wrote:

There are alternatives to Type A. I'm working on an expert system
that plays chess. Type A programs are still much stronger - it took a
long time before my program could beat gnuchess.

Dan

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Dan Thies (rt...@wt.net) wrote:
: On 06 Oct 1997 02:16:36 EDT, "Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca>
: wrote:

: Dan

It was actually much worse. He wrote an article that was published in
the JICCA, where he gave analysis and comments, that were not just
flawed, but were obvious intentional misstatements of fact. His main
mistake however, was in publishing the search trees for the positions,
because he claimed pioneer could see that a position was won when it
was very unclear, and in another PV it actually made illegal moves. Hans
Berliner found it impossible to reconcile such superior judgement on one
path with such profound ignorance on another line. And then further analysis
showed that the remainder of the "so-called Pioneer output" was most likely
fraudulent. A shame, because I had the chance to meet and talk with
Botvinnik at the 1983 world computer chess championship in New York. He was
a class act and an obviously great chess player. I think the pressures of
"Mother Russia" led to this debacle...


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

gazoline-hyatt@crafty (Robert <gazolining> Hyatt) wrote:

>Dan Thies (rt...@wt.net) wrote:
>: On 06 Oct 1997 02:16:36 EDT, "Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca>
>: wrote:

>: >I don't really think that Botvinnik meant to fraudently misrepresent
>: >himself. The problem was that he and his programmers just couldn't get his
>: >ideas to work, and to keep getting money for the project, he had to present
>: >something.

>: Well, what he presented was a claim that he actually had something
>: working. If he didn't (does anyone seriously believe that he did?)
>: then he clearly was fraudulently misrepresenting himself. If he was
>: doing it to get backing, that would seem to be fairly intentional.

>: Dan

>It was actually much worse.

There's *no* proof for that.
I'm writing for the documentation of Dejas, not to a fascist whose idea
is to exploit humans to make profit out of their physical chemistry.
SHIT. :)


> He wrote an article that was published in
>the JICCA, where he gave analysis and comments, that were not just
>flawed, but were obvious intentional misstatements of fact.


I for one ask here in rgcc for proofs. How to prove *intentional*
misstatements.

Just to challenge all that:

When was the article of Botvinnik written? How much time afterwards came
Berliner? Was it at a point where a new technique was at hand to be able
to "prove" or was it at the moment when Berliner could be sure that a
more than old Botvinnik wouldn't be able to even respond to the attack??

Please exact dates and not overall handwaving...


> His main
>mistake however, was in publishing the search trees for the positions,
>because he claimed pioneer could see that a position was won when it
>was very unclear, and in another PV it actually made illegal moves. Hans
>Berliner found it impossible to reconcile such superior judgement on one
>path with such profound ignorance on another line.

1. If lines were obviously "faulty" why it needed a *Berliner* top come
up with the revolutionary insight?? Couldn't been seen before?

2. Could it be excluded that the printed lines are not the correct ones
Botvinnik was referring to?

3. Just a short note on Deep Blue's second game in new York. If Berliner
was able to conclude that two different situations didn't fit, the one
too ignorant the other too clever, why it should be impossible in
advance to even try to check DB's output for possible inconsistencies??

That was at least what was claimed in another thread answering this
author.


> And then further analysis
>showed that the remainder of the "so-called Pioneer output" was most likely
>fraudulent.

But not water-proved for sure?

For the sake of Dejas. If Botvinnik would never had published his
output, wouldn't it be the same situation as it's now with the DB team
hiding in secrecy??


> A shame, because I had the chance to meet and talk with
>Botvinnik at the 1983 world computer chess championship in New York. He was
>a class act and an obviously great chess player.

>I think

--- ROTFL ------

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:


>: I for one ask here in rgcc for proofs. How to prove *intentional*
>: misstatements.

>: Just to challenge all that:

>: When was the article of Botvinnik written? How much time afterwards came
>: Berliner? Was it at a point where a new technique was at hand to be able
>: to "prove" or was it at the moment when Berliner could be sure that a
>: more than old Botvinnik wouldn't be able to even respond to the attack??

>I don't have the issue in front of me... but I believe that they were
>published "back to back" in consecutive issues.

For this case I give this add:

Was the matrial in question published in that 'back to back' version for
the first time? Or was it a reprint of some sort. I write that because I
want to know -- for the sake of truth - 100% correctly the time of both,
First release date of the mentioned lines (not specifically the article
in that journal!). Second date of Berliner#s first comment.

To speak it out. If there was a longer time period in between I will
repeat my question why the hell this Berliner came up with ll that when
Botvinnik was almost senile and unable to rect properly. But before, and
a book dated 1968 was mentioned here these days, nobody wrote a negative
thing about his work?? Sounds not only but would be fishy -- again, IF
happened this way.

To make it quite clear. Nobody will come close to the real truth without
further data from Russia. But that not the question. The question is the
way the american scientifical community for cc handled this case in
comparison with the Deep Blue scandal, if it is one, of this year.

Time of blabla is gone. Either post facts but not the typical DB proxy
shit, we should wait still two more years... and blabla about I knew
Murray and shit he was always a sound guy. Nobody would speak the
contrary. What interests are the exact data for the second game. Not
tiny snips. And I want to know if the reaction is correct to let them
their peace (for the sake of the big money), but this throwing shit on
Botvinnik of Berliner is the holy birth of all cc in USA, against
Botvinnik, who *was* a class act in chess, what cannot be said of
Benjamin and boxing Ashley and hamacting Tan, and all the secrecy gang
of IBM.

Sure this is questioning at the limit, but people are fed up with these
inconsistencies in US-politics. The Russians should open the archives
but the secrets of USA are sacrosanct... SHIT. :)

>Hans saw the article,

Yes, must have been somehow... ROTFL.

>studied the analysis more carefully than most of us, and concluded it
>was bullsnot.

What? this is still possible. Analysing something deeper than *you* from
the secret order? Really? The way you walk around here I would never
have expected that. Or Berliner must have been a real champ...

But I never heard of a correspondance champ coming even close to a real
human super GM. That is something completely different.


>And he offered convincing analysis that it was so. I
>didn't like the "way" he did it, but "what" he said was, in fact, dead
>accurate.

On the base of what. That is my new question other than in our last
year's debate. I want to know exactly if the data in this articale was
the correct and original data of Botvinnik. Or was it somehow worked
over or whatever? By the journal or possibly collegues of Botvinnik
themselves?

And I speak it out freely. What I want to know ids IF it was exclusively
Botvinnik himself who presented data that could be judged by Berliner as
plain shit. That is my question. And I want a strait answer. With data,
no handwaving, and possible kneefalls before "Hans". Because probably it
isn't absolutely a topic about Hans but about tries to cheat on
Botvinnik to defame his basically (?) sound approach. I'm asking for the
exact procedere from the first publication of the Botvinnik lines, the
claimed reports for his program in solving the lines and so on. And how
many years later berliner did come up with his relevation?

ALL harmless questions. Who must have an answer. And perhaps we find
either this or that way a satisfying answer for the underlying question
of the possible worth of this approach. The technical freaks might
continue their work but the scientists should keep the record straight,
ok?

And if Hyatt could talk to the communist Botvinnik, why I should not be
able to gazoline Hyatt. It's for the sake of the truth.

>I will find this when I get to the office Monday, unless someone else has
>back issues of the JICCA and can cite them before then...

>: Please exact dates and not overall handwaving...


>: > His main
>: >mistake however, was in publishing the search trees for the positions,
>: >because he claimed pioneer could see that a position was won when it
>: >was very unclear, and in another PV it actually made illegal moves. Hans
>: >Berliner found it impossible to reconcile such superior judgement on one
>: >path with such profound ignorance on another line.

>: 1. If lines were obviously "faulty" why it needed a *Berliner* top come
>: up with the revolutionary insight?? Couldn't been seen before?

>yes it could. But Hans felt strongly enough to respond. Just as I
>frequently do here as well.

Aha. I almost smell some fire here. I am waiting for the exact data. And
note, my hypothesis still is that Berliner came out of the closet at the
moment Botvinnik was almost senile ...

>: 2. Could it be excluded that the printed lines are not the correct ones
>: Botvinnik was referring to?

>No, because the search trees matched the text where moves were mentioned.
>So it wasn't a typo.

>: 3. Just a short note on Deep Blue's second game in new York. If Berliner


>: was able to conclude that two different situations didn't fit, the one
>: too ignorant the other too clever, why it should be impossible in
>: advance to even try to check DB's output for possible inconsistencies??

>: That was at least what was claimed in another thread answering this
>: author.


>: > And then further analysis
>: >showed that the remainder of the "so-called Pioneer output" was most likely
>: >fraudulent.

>: But not water-proved for sure?

>no way to "prove" intent to fraud, generally. It is easy to prove when
>fraud occurs. In this case, statements from the text were simply and
>clearly incorrect. And they were made in a way that made Pioneer look
>revolutionary, when, in fact, it couldn't play legal chess.

>: For the sake of Dejas. If Botvinnik would never had published his


>: output, wouldn't it be the same situation as it's now with the DB team
>: hiding in secrecy??


>: > A shame, because I had the chance to meet and talk with
>: >Botvinnik at the 1983 world computer chess championship in New York. He was
>: >a class act and an obviously great chess player.

>: >I think

>: --- ROTFL ------

>probably about the only thing you can do without any assistance...

Maybe. In regard to the questions in cc would you prefer people drifted
completely over the edge without connection to challenging and
refutations? What is the point here? That you never heard of the
different scientifical methods but judge me as unable to understand what
science really is? It would not surprise me that you did nothing else
your whole life long as playing cc. And programming. Not bad with it.
But the whole scientifical complex then ws a question of an intense
course of a week or some, am I right? :)
That's how it's done, no? I know it for sure. In general. You might be
the exception of course...

And in case of some of my questions here I already saw evidence enough
to convince me that I'm on a right track. Because you simply don't know
why soem questions are important for...

>: > the pressures of


>: >"Mother Russia" led to this debacle...

On the base of this theory for instance I would be careful in
insinuating the individual Botvinnik of cheat and fraud. How do *you*
know? From IBM or where from? The government? :)

I once applauded you for defending old friends. Compliment.
But I'd even go further one important step. *I* get sick reading such
stuff, not really water proof stuff about a human genius. As if kicking
him somewhere could elevate someone's own reputation...


I learned that in history it's often only half the truth a certain
story. This story might be true as such, *but* in the light of deeper
and further data search it might look otherwise. And then the prior
judgement could not be maintained anylonger. Therefore I ask for the
details about Berliner. To come closer to the solution. It might have
been the famous kick into the grave for Botvinnik... Let's see the data.
Then it might be the one for Berliner himself.

To apologize in advance. I dont know much about Berliner. I have nothing
against him. I'm interested in the attacks on Botvinnik. But a very
strong motive is to show people like you as suiperficial scientists who
create out of hypocricy safe sanataries for the elitarian experts but if
it fits their political beliefs they give a shit on decency and careful
scientifical analysis. °) And this in times of secrecy about DB/IBM
team...

°)

For instance in a quarrel between a nazi-like stuff poster, his critic,
and the Schroder insult aginst the critic, Hyatt took sides for the
nazi-like party. because this side is represented by cc "experts". But
the critic is a cc nobody... A special group had to be founded because
Schroder left the open group. Sure, pure cc has nothing to do with
politics (see the case Botvinnik :)) but if you take sides without
checking the data for the question who was first with this off topic (I
was the critic of something! So I was logically not the first, no?) then
it's a treason of all standards of science.

If you don't correct, this will follow you till your last days here on
usenet. Crafty first place in Paris or whatever...
Give a correction, please.

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:


>And if Hyatt could talk to the communist Botvinnik, why I should not be
>able to gazoline Hyatt. It's for the sake of the truth.


This goes too far of course. Tueschen never planned to "gazoline" Hyatt.
But to talk to 'gazoline Hyatt'. Gasolining, for all who don't know
about that, was a nice idea Hyatt posted last year for profiting of
criminals in death rows. Consequently Czub and others felt free later on
to stabalize such ideas by further nazi-like methods... (concentration
camps for instance). Also Schroder is famous for his audacious insult
against Tueschen who had dared to attack Czub for this "idea". Since
Hyatt came up with this gasolining profit method I fight against
fascistical tendencies among cc experts. With few public approval. But
someone has to do it and take that burden, no?


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: >Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:


: >: I for one ask here in rgcc for proofs. How to prove *intentional*
: >: misstatements.

: >: Just to challenge all that:

: >: When was the article of Botvinnik written? How much time afterwards came
: >: Berliner? Was it at a point where a new technique was at hand to be able
: >: to "prove" or was it at the moment when Berliner could be sure that a
: >: more than old Botvinnik wouldn't be able to even respond to the attack??

: >I don't have the issue in front of me... but I believe that they were
: >published "back to back" in consecutive issues.

: For this case I give this add:

: Was the matrial in question published in that 'back to back' version for
: the first time? Or was it a reprint of some sort. I write that because I
: want to know -- for the sake of truth - 100% correctly the time of both,
: First release date of the mentioned lines (not specifically the article
: in that journal!). Second date of Berliner#s first comment.


Yes. Journals typically don't print "second-hand" material, as a
requirement for publication. So this was a first print. Some material
could have been printed in other journals. I don't know. And I don't
care. But there was no 5 year delay between publication and Han's
refutation, so drop that line of reasoning. As I said, I believe the
origanal paper and the refutation from Berliner were in back-to-back
issues. This happens quite frequently, where someone makes a mistake,
and the next issue carries a critique from a reader in the "letters"
section.

: To speak it out. If there was a longer time period in between I will


: repeat my question why the hell this Berliner came up with ll that when
: Botvinnik was almost senile and unable to rect properly. But before, and
: a book dated 1968 was mentioned here these days, nobody wrote a negative
: thing about his work?? Sounds not only but would be fishy -- again, IF
: happened this way.

There was no long delay so the question is moot.

: To make it quite clear. Nobody will come close to the real truth without


: further data from Russia. But that not the question. The question is the
: way the american scientifical community for cc handled this case in
: comparison with the Deep Blue scandal, if it is one, of this year.

They are not even remotely similar. Botvinnik made claims that were not
backed up by his program's output. He claimed Pioneer could do things that
it obviously could not, based on the output he gave. That has *nothing*
to do with the Deep Blue vs Kasparov match. Only a very few are into this
"conspiracy" junk, and there's no evidence of any kind to support such a
claim, completely unlike the Botvinnik case.


: Time of blabla is gone. Either post facts but not the typical DB proxy


: shit, we should wait still two more years... and blabla about I knew
: Murray and shit he was always a sound guy. Nobody would speak the
: contrary. What interests are the exact data for the second game. Not
: tiny snips. And I want to know if the reaction is correct to let them
: their peace (for the sake of the big money), but this throwing shit on
: Botvinnik of Berliner is the holy birth of all cc in USA, against
: Botvinnik, who *was* a class act in chess, what cannot be said of
: Benjamin and boxing Ashley and hamacting Tan, and all the secrecy gang
: of IBM.

You need to take up crossword puzzles or something to improve your
vocabulary. It seems you can't write without using the word "shit".
Do you also eat with that foul mouth? If so, how?

: Sure this is questioning at the limit, but people are fed up with these


: inconsistencies in US-politics. The Russians should open the archives
: but the secrets of USA are sacrosanct... SHIT. :)

Q.E.D.


: >Hans saw the article,

: Yes, must have been somehow... ROTFL.

: >studied the analysis more carefully than most of us, and concluded it
: >was bullsnot.

: What? this is still possible. Analysing something deeper than *you* from
: the secret order? Really? The way you walk around here I would never
: have expected that. Or Berliner must have been a real champ...

: But I never heard of a correspondance champ coming even close to a real
: human super GM. That is something completely different.


: >And he offered convincing analysis that it was so. I
: >didn't like the "way" he did it, but "what" he said was, in fact, dead
: >accurate.

: On the base of what. That is my new question other than in our last
: year's debate. I want to know exactly if the data in this articale was
: the correct and original data of Botvinnik. Or was it somehow worked
: over or whatever? By the journal or possibly collegues of Botvinnik
: themselves?

I don't know how to spell it out any clearer. Find a local university
that can get the two journal articles on inter-library loan. Then you
can see for yourself. Funny how you like to jump into these discussions.
You know nothing about the botvinnik article, nor about Han's comments,
yet you are sure it was bullshit. You know nothing about DB, yet you
are certain they cheated. You know nothing of Kasparov, yet you know
that the match was "theatrics" only. The only common thread in the above
is "you know nothing..." Which is about the only part of the above that
is probably true...


: And I speak it out freely. What I want to know ids IF it was exclusively


: Botvinnik himself who presented data that could be judged by Berliner as
: plain shit. That is my question. And I want a strait answer. With data,
: no handwaving, and possible kneefalls before "Hans". Because probably it
: isn't absolutely a topic about Hans but about tries to cheat on
: Botvinnik to defame his basically (?) sound approach. I'm asking for the
: exact procedere from the first publication of the Botvinnik lines, the
: claimed reports for his program in solving the lines and so on. And how
: many years later berliner did come up with his relevation?

3 months later. *not* years. Please learn to read. The JICCA is
published 4 times per year. I said the article and the rebuttal from
Hans were back-to-back. Surely you can figure out that two back to
back issues in a quarterly journal are not separated by years? Jeez...


: ALL harmless questions. Who must have an answer. And perhaps we find


: either this or that way a satisfying answer for the underlying question
: of the possible worth of this approach. The technical freaks might
: continue their work but the scientists should keep the record straight,
: ok?

: And if Hyatt could talk to the communist Botvinnik, why I should not be
: able to gazoline Hyatt. It's for the sake of the truth.

: >I will find this when I get to the office Monday, unless someone else has
: >back issues of the JICCA and can cite them before then...

: >: Please exact dates and not overall handwaving...


: >: > His main
: >: >mistake however, was in publishing the search trees for the positions,
: >: >because he claimed pioneer could see that a position was won when it
: >: >was very unclear, and in another PV it actually made illegal moves. Hans
: >: >Berliner found it impossible to reconcile such superior judgement on one
: >: >path with such profound ignorance on another line.

: >: 1. If lines were obviously "faulty" why it needed a *Berliner* top come
: >: up with the revolutionary insight?? Couldn't been seen before?

: >yes it could. But Hans felt strongly enough to respond. Just as I
: >frequently do here as well.

: Aha. I almost smell some fire here. I am waiting for the exact data. And
: note, my hypothesis still is that Berliner came out of the closet at the
: moment Botvinnik was almost senile ...

No. Your hypothesis seems to prove that it is you that is senile...

: >: 2. Could it be excluded that the printed lines are not the correct ones

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:


: I for one ask here in rgcc for proofs. How to prove *intentional*
: misstatements.

: Just to challenge all that:

: When was the article of Botvinnik written? How much time afterwards came
: Berliner? Was it at a point where a new technique was at hand to be able
: to "prove" or was it at the moment when Berliner could be sure that a
: more than old Botvinnik wouldn't be able to even respond to the attack??

I don't have the issue in front of me... but I believe that they were

published "back to back" in consecutive issues. Hans saw the article,


studied the analysis more carefully than most of us, and concluded it

was bullsnot. And he offered convincing analysis that it was so. I


didn't like the "way" he did it, but "what" he said was, in fact, dead
accurate.

I will find this when I get to the office Monday, unless someone else has


back issues of the JICCA and can cite them before then...

: Please exact dates and not overall handwaving...


: > His main
: >mistake however, was in publishing the search trees for the positions,
: >because he claimed pioneer could see that a position was won when it
: >was very unclear, and in another PV it actually made illegal moves. Hans
: >Berliner found it impossible to reconcile such superior judgement on one
: >path with such profound ignorance on another line.

: 1. If lines were obviously "faulty" why it needed a *Berliner* top come
: up with the revolutionary insight?? Couldn't been seen before?

yes it could. But Hans felt strongly enough to respond. Just as I
frequently do here as well.

: >I think

: --- ROTFL ------

: > the pressures of

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

For instance in a quarrel between a nazi-like stuff poster, his critic,
and the Schroder insult against the critic, Hyatt took sides for the

nazi-like party. because this side is represented by cc "experts". But
the critic is a cc nobody... A special group had to be founded because
Schroder left the open group. Sure, pure cc has nothing to do with
politics (see the case Botvinnik :)) but if you take sides without
checking the data for the question who was first with this off topic (I
was the critic of something! So I was logically not the first, no?) then
it's a treason of all standards of science.

If you don't correct, this will follow you till your last days here on
usenet. Crafty first place in Paris or whatever...
Give a correction, please.

======================================================

For the questions about the exact sources we should wait until you come
up with the dates out of your "office".

Because it's useless to discuss differentiated with an
impostor-scientist who never before heard of the little two letter word
"if". And who prefers to hunt for cheap success. This is cheat in first
degree. When he starts to fight as "if" the word "if" was never
mentioned. But for quick shots from the saddle this word is probably too
small to be seen. The typical US problem since the old Mauser and
Manlicher differences... "What did that mean Butthead? Haha. What?"

The details are not *so* important... Main thing, the monnnay.

Another correction.

The continuous use of the word shit is not always a signal for a
perverted mind but for the perverted situation.

And I want to explain why the word SHIT. :) comes to mind like a reflex
almost in combination with the word "Hyatt". This is an easy one to
explain.

We have an allegedly university teacher with all titles. We have an open
newsgroup. We have a case. But we have little data. Very few data.
Why do we have a case then. Well, a chess monster giant asked some nasty
questions that gave us the hints. This giant knows almost factor 37006
more about chess than our little university teacher. But it must be
admitted. Our little university teacher knows also a lot of things. He's
for instance a monster expert for playing chess on the base/with the aid
of only TWO chopsticks. Later this was called chopchess and recently
this was changed to computer(chop)chess. Some everlasting
revolutionaires of '68 tend to call it chipchess, giving the impression
that it resembled a more or less cheap chess.

Back to our little monster teacher. He's a friend of the rich team of
IBM, dep. Deep Blue. He's closely related to them with the famous mafia
bonds of Marlon Brando in this film...

But nobody has data. Even teacher on horse -- no data. SHIT. :)

Now it comes to eroding developments.

In the open group some people asked questions. Think of that. They
simply asked about the data. Teacher couldn't hold the shit and still
sitting in the closet he hammered into the NET that from now on all
questions should be forbidden or censored in a new elitarian group for
older senile programmers. Because, he wrote, where will all this *end*??
Everybody asking questions, BTW questions that are pornographical from
their base upwards, that would turn society upside down.
So at first he threatened with the law of USA. Everybody asking a
question had first to win a 10 y. trial about the reasons why he wanted
to ask exactly those questions...

Read my new book about all the details.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fact is now that all sissies are united in a new church like group with
each morning a salvation chorus and correct titles all day long. That
means for instance:

Her Royal Majesty, the dickhead Professoral Laureate Hyatt wants to sent
this parcel (hehehe) to Mr. Big Bombastico FishermansFriend Eduardo
InsultingStick Schröder, the ninth Worshipper of Mammon.

"My Crafty shows a clear sailing low 3.44 against null dabei truncking
at the roots failing high with chances for White." "Oh my gracious lord,
what a thunderstorm, you blow me over the ocean, my lovely. REBEL peaks
at the first window an ELO of almost 2955 which is a wonderful *AEGON*
against Sophy, excuse me, only a woman of course <making signs of
disgust>, a clear winner thanks to the magnificent opening booklet of
Jeroeon. If you send your order until next Sunday service I could give
you 0.0056 % discount in Guilders and the Orang Utan 1.b4 book as
add-on. But now we must part, brother, leave me, I must refresh my
database..." "Okay, I uncopple and go back to Craftspace. See you later,
for dinner in the crypt."

I think I made it quite clear. SHIT stands for MONEY somehow.


hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>I don't know how to spell it out any clearer. Find a local university

How to find that? I think I'm too young for that? Don't you know exact
URL?

>that can get the two journal articles on inter-library loan.

Isn't it porn'? Interlabial..? Please be a bit more precisesly.

>Then you
>can see for yourself. Funny how you like to jump into these discussions.

See above, Your Lower Wisdomking.

>You know nothing about the botvinnik article,

But my prick is *haaaalf* a meter longer than yours. There you are...

>nor about Han's comments,

I'd thought I had the first part printed in german two days before
Mikhail jumped into his grave... (See last year's Dejas, Your
WithoutBrain.)

>yet you are sure it was bullshit.

Learn to differentiate between decent questions and cowboy Joy-Di-Howe.

>You know nothing about DB,

I had time enough to read all the fairy tales in the world's most
prominent mags...

>yet you
>are certain they cheated.

Yeah, possibly, you MickeyMouseSantaAlabamaClown. Duh.
If I'm not GOD, I still can give a nice preview on the next thunder
after I saw a lightening. Was that too much for Your Closet MonsterHigh?

>You know nothing of Kasparov,

He's my brother, Mr. Alien Sucker.

>yet you know
>that the match was "theatrics" only.

No, it was 50% MONEY, Huckleberry.

>The only common thread in the above
>is "you know nothing..."

But that's not little, no. ROTFL.

>Which is about the only part of the above that
>is probably true...

And now I invite all members of the group (the free group) to judge.
This above the Alabama University teacher wrote well knowing the little
paragraphe now coming. Now decide yourself where the author made
statements unsound on the base of the partly known data.
Fortunately the IF was printed in capital letters, for Alzheimer
patients... So I'm asking myself what was the problem for Hyatt?

>: And I speak it out freely. What I want to know is IF it was exclusively


>: Botvinnik himself who presented data that could be judged by Berliner as
>: plain shit. That is my question. And I want a strait answer. With data,
>: no handwaving, and possible kneefalls before "Hans". Because probably it
>: isn't absolutely a topic about Hans but about tries to cheat on
>: Botvinnik to defame his basically (?) sound approach. I'm asking for the
>: exact procedere from the first publication of the Botvinnik lines, the
>: claimed reports for his program in solving the lines and so on. And how

>: many years later Berliner did come up with his relevation?
[I corrected the typos I could see.]

>3 months later. *not* years. Please learn to read. The JICCA is
>published 4 times per year. I said the article and the rebuttal from
>Hans were back-to-back. Surely you can figure out that two back to
>back issues in a quarterly journal are not separated by years? Jeez...

Nope. I adapted a little bit to your limits and was asking myself you
probably meant different *years* with your back to back. I followed that
counting your years of absense in the bed of your marriage and thought
if he doesn't fuck so often, why his glanders should be more activated
in questions of scientifical publications... Your an *old* man. I'm 22.
Hope that explains the point. :))

If the story doesn't fit your wishes, come up with newer data... :))


>: >: > A shame, because I had the chance to meet and talk with
>: >: >Botvinnik at the 1983 world computer chess championship in New York. He was
>: >: >a class act and an obviously great chess player.

>: >: >I think

>: >: --- ROTFL ------

>: >probably about the only thing you can do without any assistance...

===========================================

Addendum ad infinitum!

For instance in a quarrel between a nazi-like stuff poster, his critic,

and the Schroder insult against the critic, Hyatt took sides for the

mclane

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:


>>And if Hyatt could talk to the communist Botvinnik, why I should not be
>>able to gazoline Hyatt. It's for the sake of the truth.

>This goes too far of course. Tueschen never planned to "gazoline" Hyatt.
>But to talk to 'gazoline Hyatt'. Gasolining, for all who don't know
>about that, was a nice idea Hyatt posted last year for profiting of
>criminals in death rows. Consequently Czub and others felt free later on
>to stabalize such ideas by further nazi-like methods... (concentration
>camps for instance). Also Schroder is famous for his audacious insult
>against Tueschen who had dared to attack Czub for this "idea". Since
>Hyatt came up with this gasolining profit method I fight against
>fascistical tendencies among cc experts. With few public approval. But
>someone has to do it and take that burden, no?

Are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person ?
Now you begin to get some schizoid problems, he ??


0 new messages