*The* games of Ed Schroder Part I
Rolf Tueschen
Some doubts (I)
---------------
Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
on our news-server.
ES posted some games. Period. Afterwards he answered several
times in this way: *OK, but look at the games*.
It may be allowed therefore to take this look. :)
(Short notice: my motives are not anti ES or pro Marty.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Statement: Presentation of the data (games) is unacceptable.
The 10, 12 ore more games of each match.
Is it possible for me/everyone to repeat these games?
Would I receive the same results?
Would I receive the same follow-up of the games?
I mean, if I took MChess and Rebel 6.
My game 1 would be the same as No 1 of ES?
In other words: are these games independent by chance?
Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
Is it necessary to give MChess always white?
Is this a normal match when sides are never changed?
Had the colours to be like this because of a filling up
routine of the learning function of MChess?
Critical intervention:
If I would show you a film binary attached which shows s.th.
that looks like an UFO - - would you instantly believe your
eyes? Or would you prefer to ask some questions like:
where did you get this from, when, did you film yourself ....
Not one writer asked this to ES.
Some very careful authors wrote instead: your data - if
presented correctly ---
That's the point of course.
Whithout answering ALL questions one cannot derive anything
out of *the* games. Period.
(In next part II I come to the statement:
The conclusions are unacceptable.)
(then follows *ES shifting arguments*
and some further parts if needed. :)
Rolf Tueschen
Albert Silver
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
<snip>
> (Short notice: my motives are not anti ES or pro Marty.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Statement: Presentation of the data (games) is unacceptable.
>
> The 10, 12 ore more games of each match.
>
> Is it possible for me/everyone to repeat these games?
> Would I receive the same results?
> Would I receive the same follow-up of the games?
> I mean, if I took MChess and Rebel 6.
> My game 1 would be the same as No 1 of ES?
> In other words: are these games independent by chance?
> Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
> Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
> How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
> Rolf Tueschen
Since you don't post any attempt to dialogue via private e-mail, but
rather post this publicly, then I'm sorry, but you ARE taking sides even
though you do not seem to realize it. Did you ask Ed Schroeder? Did he
refuse to answer? If he did THEN you should post it publicly saying,
"Hey, I asked him the following questions whcih to me seem to be
pertinent and he didn't answer." The fact that you don't do this but
rather present this as a grand conspiracy IS presenting a biased end of
the picture. It isn't a matter of whether you are right or wrong but on
how things are done.
Albert Silver
Note: What follows is to satisfy my news server's need for equal amounts
of text: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Rolf Tueschen
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Some doubts (I)
>---------------
>Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
>on our news-server.
---------------------------------------------------
>Whithout answering ALL questions one cannot derive anything
>out of *the* games. Period.
>(In next part II I come to the statement:
> The conclusions are unacceptable.)
Notice:
Part II had to be postponed another day because Ed Schroder was not
able to answer the many questions in such a short time.
I would have prefered that Ed answered -- than to misuse this group
for commercial product placements. If he does it on his HP everything
is fine. If he sends private mails everything is fine. I will come
back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics which startet
end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm lost in the
jungle and try to start my product placement on the net, give me a
short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
Rolf Tueschen
Albert Silver
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
:
: Dear Mr. Silver,
:
: thank you for your comment.
:
: As I answered just some hours ago another mail about the SSDF :
question/thread I
: want to answer you as well. I'm trying to explain. Perhaps you could :
judge my
: writings.
:
: It is rather complicated but your mail shows me that you are in the :
discussion
: but you didn't react openly in the news group. Thats my first
question. : I don't
: understand this. I thought I had come - 7 weeks ago - into a medium :
where I
: could enter freely into threads where/if I had s.th. to :
say/answer/question OR
: just giving my commentary earnest/may be half joking. This seems to be
: wrong if
: I understand your mail right?
To my knowledge, that isn't what I said. What I said was that you had a
long series of questions presented publicly under the form of a grand
conspiracy, directed straight at Ed Schroeder, yet even though these
questions are directed at him you don't present any previous (to this
posting) effort to ask them to him personally. Presented as they were IS
biased despite the fact that you begin by stating you are neutral in the
matter. You don't merely question the methods, which WOULD be an
objective criticism, you make a number of insinuating allegations that
Ed Schroeder twisted the information to suit his need. I quote:
: Is it possible for me/everyone to repeat these games?
: Would I receive the same results?
: Would I receive the same follow-up of the games?
Insinuating (not stating I'll grant you) that that might not be the
case, and that Ed Schroeder may have forged his results. If you didn't
believe that he might have forged his results you wouldn't cast doubt on
the possibility of repeating those games, or am I missing something?
: I mean, if I took MChess and Rebel 6.
: My game 1 would be the same as No 1 of ES?
The same as number one? Is that an issue? If you get the same results
(identical games) but in a different order (say one game is a French
Defence, and another is a King's Indian, does it matter which comes
first if they show the same thing?) does it matter?
: In other words: are these games independent by chance?
: Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
: Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
This is a direct attack on his integrity! There's nothing impartial
about this statement.
: How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind
As I recall, he explained this. Although he may have known of the
concept
before, he does quote his Opening Book Editor as having had a discussion
with MChess Pro's Opening Book Editor in which the latter TOLD him that
he would be doing this. Although there has been a great deal of denial,
Ed Schroeder has stood his ground on this point.
:
: BTW did you read my postings for the combination of free speach AND
: responsability? I promise that I try always to be writing from a :
responsible
: base on.
No offense, but attacking someone's integrity publicly, unless you have
solid evidence to back it up, is NOT a responsible attitude in my
opinion.
:
: So let me ask you. Who did tell you that I NEVER exchanged mails with
: Ed
: Schroder before?? And I give the answer to your assumption: you are :
wrong in
: supposing that (that I never did).
:
: And I ask why I had normally to ask Ed per mail before I post s.th. :
about a
: topic which is still on the sender and which I never started?
: Why I had to ask him before? Regarding the very long thread (over 100
: postings)
: I had to ask him when entering as a newbie the discussion?
: He is allowed to post an interesting finding AND I have to mail him if
: I had
: questions about it? May be I'm too stupid to understand.
Those questions are presented as accusations.
:
: I am not allowed to quote out of several emails exchanged yet - but
let : me tell
: you this: it goes like this: I write *I mean it is A* and hear *no no
I : don't
: believe you, you don't mean A*.
:
: You may understand that I don't applaude being caught in such a :
double-bind.
:
: So here for you too my motive. Please analyse it and tell me what do :
you think
: about.
:
: Chess and chess programs are my hobby. For years I had to handle it
for : my own.
: Now I'm very happy that all these interesting topics are discussed in
: detail in
: INTERNET. So I tried to enter. I already posted a game someone sought,
: gave some
: findings of my downloads from pitt.edu, commented on topics mentioned
: above,
: reacted on Fritz4 results, where I had match results too, posted a :
study of mine
: which showed that Fritz2 had difficulties to solve and so on. Is this
: all bad
: stuff in your opinion?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you were to present
different findings then that would be another story, but you don't.
:
: Then I have the privilege or the disadvantage - some may find - that I
: learned a
: lot about science and experiments and statistics and presenting
: data/conclusions.
:
: Now a newsgroup may not be confounded with a colloquium.
:
: So if I came to the conclusion that something may be better argued I :
try to ask
: and enter a debate if it is interesting for me.
:
: Some readers - I found out - seem to analyse on a base instead *who is
: he/ what
: motives does he have/ which party does he support with his posting/
who : will
: profit from that/ to whom it could be damage and so on*.
:
: But I only try to find out what is the point/ what is the truth. And :
you may
: believe me: I know the relativity of these notions very well.
:
: Could you doubt this? Then explain me.
:
See above.
: The SSDF is a good example. Since 92 or so I read the listings in
chess : news
: papers. And I always had a lot of questions. Now in our groups I :
finally can see
: them being discussed. Please try to understand.
:
: Perhaps you write me more about your approach. And I can learn :
something from
: your experience. Please adjust a few lines about your main interests.
: Or do you
: have commercial interests as well?
I have none.
: I said it before: business is mot under priority No 1 when I read
s.th. : I am
: longtime user of commercial products/ including support and so on. :
That's OK
: with me.
:
: You may conclude - well all very nice sayings BUT in the end Rolf is :
taking
: one's side knowing/intentionally or not.
:
: Then I ask you if this would be MY fault? Explain me please.
:
: Rolf Tueschen
:
Albert Silver
Ed Schröder
From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
: Some doubts (I)
: ---------------
: Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
: on our news-server.
: ES posted some games. Period. Afterwards he answered several
: times in this way: *OK, but look at the games*.
: It may be allowed therefore to take this look. :)
: (Short notice: my motives are not anti ES or pro Marty.)
: ----------------------------------------------------------
: Statement: Presentation of the data (games) is unacceptable.
: The 10, 12 ore more games of each match.
Good questions Rolf, indeed nobody asked me not even in private!
: Is it possible for me/everyone to repeat these games?
Yes because of the small tournament book of Mchess5.
: Would I receive the same results?
Almost.
Of course it depends on the book randomness of the 2 chess programs.
: Would I receive the same follow-up of the games?
See above answer.
: I mean, if I took MChess and Rebel 6.
: My game 1 would be the same as No 1 of ES?
: In other words: are these games independent by chance?
See above answer, it all depends on the book randomness of the
2 chess programs involved.
: Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
: Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
The matches were started for a period of one week or so.
Playing level was 40 in 2:00
So no thousands of games and no selections were made.
: How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
I explained my feelings and observations in detail to everybody
here in RGCC.
: Is it necessary to give MChess always white?
: Is this a normal match when sides are never changed?
I also have the black results of the matches, they are not as clear
as the results of the white matches.
: Had the colours to be like this because of a filling up
: routine of the learning function of MChess?
Of course not.
: Critical intervention:
: If I would show you a film binary attached which shows s.th.
: that looks like an UFO - - would you instantly believe your
: eyes? Or would you prefer to ask some questions like:
: where did you get this from, when, did you film yourself ....
: Not one writer asked this to ES.
Perhaps people know I don't believe in UFO's ? :)
: Some very careful authors wrote instead: your data - if
: presented correctly ---
: That's the point of course.
: Whithout answering ALL questions one cannot derive anything
: out of *the* games. Period.
Of course you can!
The results I posted are in complete harmony with the huge victories
SSDF got.
Secondly Rolf you can check this for yourself if you own Mchess5 and
*for example* Rebel6 or Hiarcs3. Do as follows:
Start a game between Mchess5 and Hiarcs3/Rebel6.
1 Mchess5 with the white pieces.
2 Level is 0:05 (the level is unimportant rather than get quick results)
but if you prefer set the level on tournament control.
3 Just watch the move when Mchess5 comes out of book and write down the
score of that move + the move number of Mchess5.
4 Play the game to the end (optional)
5 Start the next game and repeat steps 1-5
After 10-20-30 games you take a look at your statistics and you will
notice that you will have similar results as I have published.
If you have only one PC you simply start Mchess5 and/or Hiarcs3/Rebel6
on windows and switch with ALT_TAB.
Rolf, it would be my pleasure to receive your results.
- Ed Schroder -
: (In next part II I come to the statement:
: The conclusions are unacceptable.)
: (then follows *ES shifting arguments*
Rolf W. Tueschen
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>:(Rolf Tueschen) wrote
>: Some doubts (I)
>: ---------------
>: Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
>: on our news-server.
>: ES posted some games. Period. Afterwards he answered several
>: times in this way: *OK, but look at the games*.
>: It may be allowed therefore to take this look. :)
>: (Short notice: my motives are not anti ES or pro Marty.)
>: ----------------------------------------------------------
>: Statement: Presentation of the data (games) is unacceptable.
>: The 10, 12 ore more games of each match.
>Good questions Rolf, indeed nobody asked me not even in private!
Finally Ed, you come with an answer. Thank you very much. *Warum nicht
gleich so?* (Why not sooner in that way?) I can treat/deal with better
your public writings. Hope that everyone will remember that you took
over one week of email personal behind the curtain tries instead
answering my very simple questions. And I'm happy that you even didn't
repeat some approachs which some emailers made -- as if my questioning
per se were attacks or insults. Thank you. Now I'm able to put my
questions which I had some for a long time already before being on the
net. But these past days/emails demonstrate that sometimes free speach
is somewhat restricted in newsgroups. At least each writer must pass
some very ridicule procedures if he dared to ask SIMPLE questions.
Aliases and partymemberships are to be proven carefully. :)
>: Is it possible for me/everyone to repeat these games?
>Yes because of the small tournament book of Mchess5.
>: Would I receive the same results?
>Almost.
>Of course it depends on the book randomness of the 2 chess programs.
>: Would I receive the same follow-up of the games?
>See above answer.
>: I mean, if I took MChess and Rebel 6.
>: My game 1 would be the same as No 1 of ES?
>: In other words: are these games independent by chance?
>See above answer, it all depends on the book randomness of the
>2 chess programs involved.
>: Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
>: Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
>The matches were started for a period of one week or so.
>Playing level was 40 in 2:00
>So no thousands of games and no selections were made.
Ed-- what is the meaning of your answers? I reflected on longer tests
than one week. Even in one week you didn't get more games?
Your answer is not answering my question. I would like to know sort of
percentage results. Did you get your one dozen games for each match up
in a row as the are posted? It's a simple question. I nowhere
suspected that you might have had thousands and ONLY these 10 or 14
were selected. I want to know a simple yes or no. It was one minor
question. But it seems very difficult to answer clearly. That's
astonishing.
>: How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
>I explained my feelings and observations in detail to everybody
>here in RGCC.
Sorry Ed to be such an ignorant to ask you such questions. But I
simply never read this. I mean for me it was so strange that you came
out with your idea just after the few ethics action against Richard
--- I thought that you discovered s.th. very new and special. Nowhere
you did write anything about your motives --- even in your emails.
If it's not new at all why your timing now? It's such a simple
question? BTW I don't understand and see no intelligent motive when
you knew from July/August on that you would be No 1 on SSDF thanks to
possible direct contacts to the testing crew. You absolutely didn't
need that. So please give me a comprehensible answer here in public or
per email.
>: Is it necessary to give MChess always white?
>: Is this a normal match when sides are never changed?
>I also have the black results of the matches, they are not as clear
>as the results of the white matches.
Well. That was not such a good idea to select only those which were
*clear*. If the whole thesis is so clear why do you have to select
anything? But so your presentation speaks for itself.
Article Unavailable
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
:
: >Some doubts (I)
: >---------------
:
: >Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
: >on our news-server.
: >Whithout answering ALL questions one cannot derive anything
: >out of *the* games. Period.
: > The conclusions are unacceptable.)
:
:
: Part II had to be postponed another day because Ed Schroder was not
: able to answer the many questions in such a short time.
:
: I would have prefered that Ed answered -- than to misuse this group
: for commercial product placements. If he does it on his HP everything
: is fine. If he sends private mails everything is fine. I will come
: back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics which startet
: end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm lost in the
: jungle and try to start my product placement on the net, give me a
: short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
:
: In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
: find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
: 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
: attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
:
: Rolf Tueschen
:
:
I don't understand the "tone" of this.
On one hand, what Ed posted was clear and concise, and explained his
point of view with simple and concrete data.
On the other hand, the question of whether "cooking a book" is ethical
or not is a different issue.
Clearly he has concrete data that older versions of programs are simply
passive victims of opening preparation from newer programs. Seems very
difficult to dispute in light of the results published by both him and
the SSDF.
Whether you think this practice is acceptable is a completely different
matter altogether. I've put up with it for 25 years now, and have also
done my share of opening preparation to get ready for each new ACM or
WCCC tournament. It was/is just a part of the overall preparation. If
it bugs you that your program might suffer from a cook, make it learn and
the problem goes away. The main issue is the older programs on SSDF that
don't learn serve as fodder and distort the ratings, because they might
play strongly against non-cooked opponents and build their ratings up,
only to "donate" those points to an opponent that's been off "cookin'"
up book lines...
Ed Schröder
From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen)
>Good questions Rolf, indeed nobody asked me not even in private!
: Finally Ed, you come with an answer. Thank you very much. *Warum nicht
: gleich so?* (Why not sooner in that way?)
Rolf I never received your questions until here in RGCC.
I have answered them immediately.
I have too, don't I?
It's your show Rolf...
>The matches were started for a period of one week or so.
>Playing level was 40 in 2:00
>So no thousands of games and no selections were made.
: Ed-- what is the meaning of your answers? I reflected on longer tests
: than one week. Even in one week you didn't get more games?
Rolf I have 6 x P90 machines on my office.
Auto testing goes very fast because of that.
So there are 7-8-9 games played a day.
A week is more than sufficient to get the games I have published here.
RT wrote...
: How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
>I explained my feelings and observations in detail to everybody
>here in RGCC.
: Sorry Ed to be such an ignorant to ask you such questions. But I
: simply never read this.
From one of your previous postings I learned that you had collected
*ALL* postings from the subject (I remember you mentioned 100) and
that you only missed one of Chris. Perhaps you missed not one but two
postings? Wass ist loss mit der Deutsche Punktlichkeit?
: I mean for me it was so strange that you came out with your idea
: just after the few ethics action against Richard
It all started after a posting of Marty which I answered.
Now did I plan Marty's posting?
: --- I thought that you discovered s.th. very new and special.
Rolf, what is "s.th."?
Let me guess: Stone Throwing :)
: Nowhere you did write anything about your motives --- even in
: your emails.
I explained this in full detail to everybody here in RGCC.
It seems that you are the only one who did get the point.
But I am sure that you soon are going to tell us all.
The complete scenario must be already finished by now.
No?
: If it's not new at all why your timing now? It's such a simple
: question? BTW I don't understand and see no intelligent motive when
: you knew from July/August on that you would be No 1 on SSDF thanks to
: possible direct contacts to the testing crew.
I do not rely on testings of others.
I only rely on my own testings.
Moreover you never can predict a place on SSDF.
I have total different test methods than SSDF.
: You absolutely didn't need that. So please give me a comprehensible
: answer here in public or per email.
Rolf if I ask for BETA testers then that is NOT OF YOUR BUSINESS!
>I also have the black results of the matches, they are not as clear
>as the results of the white matches.
: Well. That was not such a good idea to select only those which were
: *clear*. If the whole thesis is so clear why do you have to select
: anything? But so your presentation speaks for itself.
The published results were the complete matches of:
Mchess5 - Rebel6
Mchess5 - Hiarcs3
Mchess5 - Genius3
and they made my point very clear.
Don't you like results Rolf?
>Of course you can!
>The results I posted are in complete harmony with the huge victories
>SSDF got.
: Dear Ed, wait a moment then --- we're just in train to discuss these
: SSDF *results*. Only afterwards we could understand what *harmony*
: means in this case.
Rubbish Rolf...
>Secondly Rolf you can check this for yourself if you own Mchess5 and
>*for example* Rebel6 or Hiarcs3. Do as follows:
: Sorry for me it is not possible to follow your instructions because I
: don't own the programs in question. As you could have read from my
: questionairy filled to *win in your surprise action*.
: Perhaps others may test:
Huh??
You say: Perhaps OTHERS may test ?????????
You say: I don't own the programs in question ????????????????
Dear Rolf, you did not test / checked it yourself ?????
Do you have no results ????????????????
And *YOU* want to blame *ME* ??????????????
Ever heard of proof / evidence / facts before you attack somebody ?????
As I said Rolf do the following:
Start a game between Mchess5 and Hiarcs3/Rebel6.
1 Mchess5 with the white pieces.
2 Level is 0:05 (the level is unimportant rather than get quick results)
but if you prefer set the level on tournament control.
3 Just watch the move when Mchess5 comes out of book and write down the
score of that move + the move number of Mchess5.
4 Play the game to the end (optional)
5 Start the next game and repeat steps 1-5
After 10-20-30 games you take a look at your statistics and you will
notice that you will have similar results as I have published.
And *than* come back to me!
: OK. It would be OK with me. Although questions remain. Does SSDF
: present the outcome of such strange matches?
Now don't change the subject Rolf!
: The word *helpless* older machines seems to me part of an
: interesting PR action nothing more.
Rolf do you officially acusing me for planning this whole subject
as a marketing strategy??? Don't you think you need proof for
such heavy allegations? Now tell me!!
: Ed, I'm afraid, that therefore your winning all these *points*
: at SSDF is really something like a Fata Morgana if my english
: is right. :)
We all have opinions, nothing wrong with that.
: Perhaps the whole action of yours would show as a waste of time. If
: all other updates settle in your new class --- we have the same
: situation as before. Everyone knows that your programs are among the
: best for years now. And I hope that this will be the case for many
: more years.
: Ed, warum nicht gleich so. For me there remain some doubts only
: because of your being so late. There must be a reason, doesn't it?
: It would be helpful if you gave me a short answer to my killergame
: against Fritz3 which I presented so proudly. Ed, sometimes it's better
: to answer the man who asks and not searching for hidden motives of
: newbies. That wound continues to hurt I admit.
Rolf as explained in the beginning I *NEVER* received your questions
until your posting appeared in RGCC.
: Rolf Tueschen
Ok Rolf you had your 2 shows, now it's my turn....
Here we go...
After your 2 personal insults on me I have contacted you by private
email resulting in many long emails. Right?
I have asked you several times: "Rolf why are you against me?".
I always got the answer "I am not against you".
Does this is in harmony with your latest 2 aggressive postings?
Still you refuse to take back your 2 personal insults on me.
Ok, I can live with that.
But I CAN NOT live with questions you are not willing to answer while
you expect from me that I answer all your questions.
Now in our private emails I asked you the following questions which
were *never* answered by you:
1.. I asked you Rolf if it was your intention from the very first start
to create a flame war on me in RGCC no matter the contents or
outcome of our private discussion.
Rolf you DID NOT answer this question.
Why?
2.. You are very very angry about my postings about the Mchess5
book. I am right Rolf?
NO REPLY from Rolf.
Why?
3.. Did you look at my arguments, have you EVER replayed ONE SINGLE
game I have posted in RGCC? Do you really UNDERSTAND what the
whole subject is about?
Again no answer from Rolf and I finally understand now. You don't
even own Hiarcs3, Rebel6 not even Mchess5!!
HOW CAN YOUR EVER UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM IF YOU EVEN NOT HAVE
A COPY OF MCHESS5!!
YOU ACUSE ME
YOU INSULT ME
YOU PUT ME ON TRIAL HERE IN RGCC
while you have no single copy of:
- Hiarcs3
- Rebel6
- Mchess5
AGAIN: DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT ROLF?
YOU EVEN DID NOT TOOK A LOOK AT THE GAMES!!
Article Unavailable
Ed Schröder
From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
*The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
: I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
: which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
: lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
: give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
New insults
New allegations
: In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
: find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
: 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
: attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
I have explained about the impact of the Mchess5 book on SSDF.
It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
Cheating / fraud are *your* words not mine.
- Ed Schroder -
: Rolf Tueschen
Komputer Korner
Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> =
> From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
> =
> *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
> =
> : I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
> : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
> : lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
> : give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
> =
> New insults
> New allegations
> =
> : In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
> : find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
> : 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
> : attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
> =
> I have explained about the impact of the Mchess5 book on SSDF.
> It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
> =
> Cheating / fraud are *your* words not mine.
> =
> - Ed Schroder -
> =
> : Rolf Tueschen
ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
you need to produce Rebel 9. =
-- =
Komputer Korner
The komputer that couldn't keep a password safe from prying eyes and
couldn't kompute the square root of 36^n.
Rolf W. Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>: (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>:
>: >Some doubts (I)
>: >---------------
>:
>: >Some time ago Ed Schroder (ES) uploaded some *heavy stuff*
>: >on our news-server.
>: ---------------------------------------------------
>: >Whithout answering ALL questions one cannot derive anything
>: >out of *the* games. Period.
>: >(In next part II I come to the statement:
>: > The conclusions are unacceptable.)
>:
>: Notice:
>:
>: Part II had to be postponed another day because Ed Schroder was not
>: able to answer the many questions in such a short time.
>:
>: In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
>: find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
>: 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
>: attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
>:
>: Rolf Tueschen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I don't understand the "tone" of this.
>On one hand, what Ed posted was clear and concise, and explained his
>point of view with simple and concrete data.
>On the other hand, the question of whether "cooking a book" is ethical
>or not is a different issue.
>Clearly he has concrete data that older versions of programs are simply
>passive victims of opening preparation from newer programs. Seems very
>difficult to dispute in light of the results published by both him and
>the SSDF.
>Whether you think this practice is acceptable is a completely different
>matter altogether. I've put up with it for 25 years now, and have also
>done my share of opening preparation to get ready for each new ACM or
>WCCC tournament. It was/is just a part of the overall preparation. If
>it bugs you that your program might suffer from a cook, make it learn and
>the problem goes away.
> The main issue is the older programs on SSDF that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>don't learn serve as fodder and distort the ratings, because they might
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>play strongly against non-cooked opponents and build their ratings up,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>only to "donate" those points to an opponent that's been off "cookin'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>up book lines...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Still with ZZ Top in my ears from another times *I wanna thank you*.
Do you aim at my tone? I don't think so. I hope you meant my
*argument*.
And it's a very simple one. So small and petit that one could really
overlook it. But I didn't hide it.
First -- *I* didn't yet understand the complete ES argument. Perhaps
that's my fault. But it seems to me that Ed simply gave a hint the
sort *something will survive against Marty anyway*.
So I'd better concentrate on your lines.
If -- I mean if, because I don't even agree on this one BTW -- this
arguing would be taken as proven, I won't follow you on your
conclusion --- BTW which you omitted in explicite form --- that
programmer of the program in case has done special prep on special
other programs. How do you know about that?
To make my point clear:
if I would give my little baby some more tools/strengrh by telling him
to use such and such lines in case such and such positions would
appear (if they did!!) --- then this would be not cheating. Or did I
miss simple proofs of that?
Bob, please, we have to be very careful. Everywhere I'm forced into
those paranoid cheater topics. Botvinnik, Marty and may be more.
But it is s.th. different observe something and to prove quasi de jure
that someone did cheat and did it itentionally.
That's my point.
And: what's the hell Marty did influence more or less primitive
testing by SSDF staff. Who forced them to compete machines from
different generations?? They CAN do it but nobody may complain about
maybe ridicule results.
Again -- I want to have proof that Marty did implement just those
lines to gain points on SSDF by easily wins against some older
versions?
I don't understand it.
For me the fault is on the tester's side.
But I'm no specialist of this topic. Let's take this line with the bad
black 00 at some time. ES seems to complain that this is exactly the
killerline. And I would say it may just be a line which helps to find
MChess the right attack if any player dares to play 00,
Now some programs play 00. What's the point?
In Europa Rochade every month there is a certain wxample of an easy
win against a new horrible strong program. I assure you that the
program ONLY looses because of his premature 00 with black and not
seeing the coming attack.
It's always fun to follow this. But for me it proves nothing --
despite that today's programs simply have to calculate but don't have
the wisdom implanted -- which every human newcomer has after 6 months.
These learning functions indeed help a lot in the mean time.
I recommanded elsewhere that SSDF should no longer put different
generations together. Simple solution. But as a general decision. Not
as an anti-MChess action.
I had some other arguments but it becomes too long for now. I must
close this post abruptly. Hope to hear from you.
Rolf Tueschen
Ed Schröder
From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
Subject: Re: *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
: ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
: you need to produce Rebel 9.
: Komputer Korner
I know...
But I also can not ignore it.
I can live with the questions from Rolf Tueschen, but not with
the "tone" or the "presentation" of his postings.
Also Rolf Tueschen keeps going on, going on, he does not stop and
also includes new poison in other threads / subjects of RGCC.
Nice this so called "free speech" on the Internet...
- Ed Schroder -
Lonnie Cook
Ed,
We know you have a good program. Don't worry about the "poison". Reality is the
antidote. You're #1 for chess programs. :?)
Lonnie J. Cook
<lonni...@riconnect.com>
"Lonnie" on A-FICS,E-FICS,& MMEICS
"DoctorWho" on ICC
Lonnie Cook
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:39:55 GMT, mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
>Komputer Korner wrote:
>>
>Otherwise I got too many problems with my girl, because I am only
>testing chess programs....
>
>PLease .... be nice and take a pause !!!!
>
>
>Programmers:
>
>Give us time to buy your products!!
I don't mind,heehee
Moritz Berger
>> From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
>> =
>> *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
>> =
>> : I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
>> : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
>> : lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
>> : give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
>> =
>> New insults
>> New allegations
>> =
>> : In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
>> : find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
>> : 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
>> : attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
>> =
>> I have explained about the impact of the Mchess5 book on SSDF.
>> It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
>> =
>> Cheating / fraud are *your* words not mine.
>> =
>> - Ed Schroder -
>> =
>> : Rolf Tueschen
>ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
>you need to produce Rebel 9. =
This is a serious problem.
If somebody
- attacks you personally
- imputes something to you
- attackes you in a libelous way, ignoring all facts and reasonable
arguments
- questions every single word you say and demands exact proof of
everything by implicating that you are lying (e.g. the above topic of
Ed's problems with newsgroup posts, where he has become a victim for a
second time as Rolf now accuses him implicitly of lying to create
interest for commercial advertisements).
you are still forced to defend yourself against it.
If somebody has infinitely time to spend writing lengthy articles on
this newsgroup he can basically force you to respond to every single
issue by insulting you or by presuming commercial interests etc..
Posing "innocent" questions as a "newbie" and then stating that they
were never meant to be allegations of the worst kind ("oh sorry, I
just had problems with my English, now that you have spent several
days fighting off my completely out-of-thin-air arguments, I conclude
that you just misread my initial post") doesn't make this any better
for the person who defended oneself against the false claims. Please
note that I don't say anybody has said the above right now in this
thread - it just seems to me that many very controversial issues
involving personal attacks usually are settled here in a more or less
polite way involving personal emails and end with some statement like
this. This thread has not been settled yet in the above way, but I
hope that it will be at least in the end.
Being attacked, you even have to be very careful in your defense and
wording in order not to start several new threads to which you also
will have to respond. This takes even more time if you're not an
English native speaker. If you're providing support for your business
here, you can be forced, by people who just won't learn, to spend more
and more time here.
This necessity of self defense can detract you more and more from your
business and can in the end eat up all your time. The attacker can
repeat his arguments ad infinitum if he cannot be calmed down by a
reasonable response. Maybe he just wants to be recognized by attacking
somebody important, maybe he will stop attacking you after you have
spent some time with his issues. But maybe he will enjoy attacking you
on every other possible issue and will even proudly claim that he has
trapped you again (Gotcha!).
Another thing is that accusations tend to stick on to somebody, even
if he defends himself. This is the reason why some people are
overreacting on the Marty Hirsch issue (avoiding the word "killer
book" ;-)) - they feel that they can't tolerate even the slightest
suggestion that Marty has done something wrong. They do this because
they maybe like his product or like him personally. However, Rolf
Tueschen is neither a customer of Marty nor a customer of Ed, he just
likes to ask questions that pose severe allegations.
Those who attack Ed to protect Marty should rethink their reasons to
do so and check again everything Ed posted here. I want to protect
both of them as persons, but I also want the killer book issue solved
because I don't like killer books and if we can solve it independent
from the "case" MChess 5 and find a "generic" solution for it - even
better! If all programs start to learn - I will appreciate this! But -
remember that Marty originated this thread with his "they don't
matter" statement - the real question remains important: If killer
books matter for the ratings, what can we do about it?
What to do about this "WAR" of Rolf and similar posts?
If attackers were reasonable, they would first try private email. This
would save some time on the response which is in most cases completely
irrelevant for the forum of this newsgroup. It would save time on
lengthy explanations with "fool proof" wording that have to explain
all facts and previous issues in detail.
_But_, if attackers were reasonable, they would not attack Ed in this
way. Some people accused him of starting the "MChess killer book"
topic WRONG! Marty Hirsch made his now famous "Opening preparation
against commercial opponents matters somewhat, but not as much as one
might expect" statement. Ed responded to it by posting (what he then
thought) irrefutable games of MChess 5 against several opponents. Ed
did the only reasonable thing, he presented facts that everybody can
easily verify and only jumped to the very obvious conclusions, only
adding his personal knowledge about what others (i.e. Sandro Necchi)
had told him or Jeroen.
Have you ever wondered why only Ed of all commercial programmers is a
regular writer in this newsgroup???? Have you ever spent a single
thought if he is here to stay for long????
Of course one might say: "If he can't stand the heat, he should quit".
This mistakes the benefit I see in getting first hand informations
from Ed about certain topics here (e.g. ply counting and singular
extensions) and the invaluable opportunity to discuss certain topics
that are of general interest (e.g. the topic about a feature rating
list for chess programs, where the public opinion in this newsgroup
seems to have convinced Ed that such a thing would be quite
meaningless in the opinion of many people).
Please make it possible for Ed to stay here! Maybe I force Rolf to
respond to this post like he forced Ed to reply to his writings, but I
think it is neccessary to point out something here in public on behalf
of my personal interest to keep Ed in this newsgroup.
Commercial programmers like Ed are much more vulnerable than other
posters, since they earn their living out of their business and they
are under a much bigger pressure not to ignore posts but to defend
themselves against every thinkable attack. That's why I find it simply
disgusting to blame him for not responding to Mr. ROLF TUESCHEN (the
one and only) but instead pursuing his business interest by publishing
some new products. Just read this:
In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
Meaning: I blame Ed for the fact that it is more important for him to
earn some money with good products INSTEAD OF giving me basically
hours if not days of completely free support to answer all my
questions to my satisfaction. ROLF IS NOT EVEN A CUSTOMER OF ED. HE
DIDN'T GIVE HIM ONE CENT. ROLF ALWAYS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WILL
NEVER BUY REBEL 8 (unless Ed fulfills several "criteria" of Rolf, e.g.
playing in Computer-Computer tournaments, that have nothing to do with
the product itself but with what accounts to more or less esotherical
ideas of Rolf).
Ed never accused Marty of cheating, fraud or "whatsoevermore". He just
published the games as an answer to Martys statement which I have
quoted above. He also said in the same post that he liked both Marty
and his program and would everybody recommend to buy it. His goal was
to achieve a general agreement among the top programmers not to use
killer books by drawing public attention to this subject. He wanted to
be able to "stay clean" - all he got was WAR.
Every reasonable person will have to agree that Ed has to refrain from
any biased postings in this newsgroup in order to remain his
credibility and not harm his business. He has gotten pretty much
negative emotions from some "defenders" of Mchess and Marty Hirsch
himself. And this although Ed stayed to the facts and Marty - if
anybody - threw mud at him! This is also directed to Thorsten Czub:
Please compare Ed's and Marty's posts. I can mail them to you if I
still have them around. Who is throwing mud?
I have found Ed's answers to be concise and sufficient. His service
and support are outstanding. I AM A CUSTOMER OF SCHROEDER B.V. and you
can bet that I am completely satisfied with the product and the
company.
I don't share Ed's view on the german CSS magazine or the SSDF - he
has obvioius commercial interests here. But to link this to the Mchess
issue is utter nonsense.
I have no problem that he announces new products and special
incentives here - he always tries to stay as concise as possbile and
refers to his homepage for more informations. This limits the size of
the posts to 30-40 lines at most, keeps them tolerable and much less
annoying than the "stop the ads" replies that appear after each post.
Marty Hirsch also announced the new MChess 6 here, and he certainly
used more words to describe it, no reference to a homepage. Still, I'm
happy that he did it (thank you, Marty !), because I don't have to buy
the CSS magazine now to get these informations ;-)
--
-------------
Moritz Berger
ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
This article may not be reprinted or quoted in the
"Computer Schach und Spiele" magazine without my prior written consent.
Rolf W. Tueschen
Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
(I *translate* because quoting would not be possible)
*** Schroder BV never wanted
-- with those killerbook games and so on --
to give people the idea/impression that the MChess opening book
was something / (sort of tool) which could be called *cheat or fraud*
in any interpretation. ***
On the contrary the Ed Schroder BV interpretes MY newbie-questioning
that the Ed Schroder BV may have MEANT probably s.th. like this as
sort of an insult. :)
But this wasn't my intention.
So I have at the moment the ridiculous situation that *I* am not able
to judge on all these interesting actions by Schroder BV. Schroder
never did attack Marty or his opening book operator? Well this is fine
with me. If it would be fine for Marty -- it would be finest with me.
:) My main thinking was the same from the very first time I read the
thread about killerbooks. It's ok, that Schroder BV now made clear
this point. But the question remains why he doesn't write this to the
public?? ;-(
But since Schroder BV clearly retired (per email) any responsability
for my possibly false understanding of possible attacks against the
MChess program/programmer I have no difficulties in no longer thinking
that Schroder BV did mean anything which could be interpreted as
attack against a program which should have *cheated* or s.th. like
that. :)
Again: Schroder made clear HE didn't mean it in the way I possibly did
understand it.
And therefore I declare that I cannot understand the whole excitement
at all. Because if this were the truth -- that Schroder BV did NEVER
insinuate something like *cheat* -- WHY Schroder BV didn't answer my
very first questions? Then I would have had a better understanding
from the very beginning.
In doing the contrary he might have acted with the motivation *semper
aliquid haeret*.
I think Schroder BV misused these groups for commercial interests.
Period.
Now Schroder BV got into a private email war against a newbie since
two weeks.
Instead of answering simple questions in public to a newbie. This is
disgustful. Because I'm not used to handle these different forms of
communication yet. And I'm surely not the official/inofficial lawyer
of Marty Hirsch.
I'm looking forward on the next actions by Schroder BV. Which could be
*juridical* ones. If I understood some messages right.
This would be a nice happening even surmounting the bad commercial
surprise action.
Instead of discussing in public Schroder BV now is running wild.
Perhaps completely misleaded by the actual title of best program on
the SSDF. :)
But after this information which I posted for my own protection the
following steps are off topic. I will give more news on that at
appropiate time in future.
Rolf Tueschen
P.S. Minor hint for Schroder BV. I won't answer no more emails in
future coming from Schroder BV. Sorry. The games of Ed Schroder did
find their natural end.
Rolf W. Tueschen
(after having read Komputer's post only and Email from Schroder BV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
(I *translate* because quoting would not be possible)
*** Schroder BV never wanted
-- with those killerbook games and so on --
to give people the idea/impression that the MChess opening book
was something / (sort of tool) which could be called *cheat or fraud*
in any interpretation. ***
On the contrary the Ed Schroder BV interpretes MY newbie-questioning
that the Ed Schroder BV may have MEANT probably s.th. like this as
sort of an insult. :)
But this wasn't my intention.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I read the following: (quote): I play with open cards. (Schroder BV to
MChess).
What does that mean? I *translated* *I play fair but you don't. Or you
take back your killer books.* Well is this not comparable to
reproaching *cheating*?
What did Schroder BV mean if all is correct? If there's no cheat, no
fraud? What the hell these 120 posts in thread MChess killerbook are
for?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rolf Tueschen
I'll have to read more about those implementations by Schroder BV to
gain plus score in BT testings. Fortunately CSS gave a lot of
information about that. erhaps the complete hypocrisy should surface.
mclane
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder wrote:
> >
> > From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
> >
> > *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
> >
> > : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
> > : lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
> > : give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
> >
> > New allegations
> >
> > : In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
> > : find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
> > : 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
> > : attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
> >
> > It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
> >
> >
> >
> > : Rolf Tueschen
>
> ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
> you need to produce Rebel 9.
> Komputer Korner
> The komputer that couldn't keep a password safe from prying eyes and
> couldn't kompute the square root of 36^n.
Before ED should produce Rebel9 we would like to test some more!!
Please ED, no Rebel9 now. Or before Christmas. Heavens!
We need time to find out about
Rebel8
Mchess6
Genius5
Power-Chess
New Goliath
New Fritz5
ChessMaster5000
New Virtual-Chess ??
and KK is speculating over REBEL9 !?!
PLEASE ----- Not yet any new version!!!
mclane
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Ed Schröder wrote:
> >
> > From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
> >
> > *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
> >
> > : I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
> > : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
> > : lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
> > : give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later on.
> >
> > New insults
> > New allegations
> >
> > : In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to
> > : find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
> > : 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination with
> > : attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
> >
> > I have explained about the impact of the Mchess5 book on SSDF.
> > It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
> >
> > Cheating / fraud are *your* words not mine.
> >
> > - Ed Schroder -
> >
> > : Rolf Tueschen
>
> ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
> you need to produce Rebel 9.
> --
Sorry, but I have forgotten
that I would like to buy
NEW Hiarcs5
NEW Chess System Tal
before Christmas.
Forgive me!
The order of appearence has nothing to do with importance nor
playing strength. I just forgot those 2 that are my programs
most in favour..... Ooops.
Komputer Korner
mclane wrote:
> =
> Komputer Korner wrote:
> >
> > Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> > >
> > > From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
> > >
> > > *The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)
> > >
> > > : I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
> > > : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
> > > : lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net=
,
> > > : give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?* * -- -- later o=
n.
> > >
> > > New insults
> > > New allegations
> > >
> > > : In the meantime all depends on the time when Ed finally achieved to=
> > > : find some answers which seems to be more difficult than to shoot
> > > : 1.100.000 games on a CDROM or to publish 40 games in combination wi=
th
> > > : attacking another programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore=
=2E
> > >
> > > I have explained about the impact of the Mchess5 book on SSDF.
> > > It's a legal book, no cheating, no fraud.
> > >
> > > Cheating / fraud are *your* words not mine.
> > >
> > > - Ed Schroder -
> > >
> > > : Rolf Tueschen
> >
> > ED, these guys are just taking you away from your valuable time that
> > you need to produce Rebel 9.
> > --
> =
> Sorry, but I have forgotten
> that I would like to buy
> =
> NEW Hiarcs5
> NEW Chess System Tal
> =
> before Christmas.
> =
> Forgive me!
> =
> The order of appearence has nothing to do with importance nor
> playing strength. I just forgot those 2 that are my programs
> most in favour..... Ooops.
Oh no, another chess komputer software junkie. I hope that the
symtoms are not too terrible for you. I must confess that I also
have the same problem with notebook komputers. At least I =
recognized the problem myself and diagnosed it as NOTEBOOK FEVER!!
Unfortunately that does not help in treating the disease. =
Notebook fever eventually leads to bankruptcy and there are no
BOB Hyatt's out there producing free notebook komputers for me =
to lay my hands on. So, consider yourself lucky that your
addiction can be satiated by free copies of Crafty at least until
Bob Hyatt develops Alzheimers or some other terminal condition. Believe
me, I know the long withdrawal pains and the terrible breaking out in =
cold sweat every time that I see a notebook ad in a komputer magazine.
My only advice to you is try not to buy subcriptions to chess =
magazines and don't surf to the programmers web sites so you won't be
tempted. However we both know that in the end, it won't help.
You will succumb completely to the GOD OF KOMPUTER CHESS who will
own your soul. RESISTANCE IS ULTIMATELY FUTILE. =
Netters, let us pray for another soul that has paid the ultimate
sacrifice before the altar of KOMPUTER CHESS. =
=
=
-- =
Matthew Twomey
What the hell are they arguing about? Please someone give me the two sentence
answer - I can get the details for the other posts, but I can't tell exactly
what it is they're fighting about!!!
Rolf W. Tueschen
ber...@athene.informatik.uni-bonn.de (Moritz Berger) wrote:
>If somebody
>- attacks you personally
>- imputes something to you
>- attackes you in a libelous way, ignoring all facts and reasonable
>arguments
>- questions every single word you say and demands exact proof of
>everything by implicating that you are lying (e.g. the above topic of
>Ed's problems with newsgroup posts, where he has become a victim for a
>second time as Rolf now accuses him implicitly of lying to create
>interest for commercial advertisements).
>you are still forced to defend yourself against it.
On Oct 25th I wrote an article *Ed's obsession ...* where I showed my
understanding of the elsewhere discussed topic *Wether delete doubles*
and *Killer books*. I think I underlined more than once that I was no
expert. If this post was complete nonsense the majority of the group
would have done ROTFL. Some dear readers may have answered to an
innocent newbie. And then the newbie would come back very instantly
with some excuse. But this seems not be needed.
Problem is however that only Schroder BV reacted. Complete quote of
this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Try harder Rolf, try harder...
I know you can do better than this...
Dream on,
or
grow up.
- Ed Schroder -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a good example of a free discussion between an expert and a
very stupid newbie.
But besides being new here, not being expert in computer programs, not
... , not ... ---- I'm not blind.
Nowhere did I say Schroder BV was lying. Nowhere did I say or say now
s.th. that implicated Schroder BV may be lying.
In opposing Schroder BV for misusing these groups for commercial
interests I just follow the published nettiquette for these groups.
Which I read at first before entering this group. Commercials simply
are not decent. That is complete different to the meaning of lies or
cheats. My observation led me to the conclusion that Schroder BV
started to prepare commercials for Rebel8 beginning with USING very
cleverly some events from end of august on.
Nowhere I sayed that Schroder BV did invent those events or cheated or
lied about it. I observed that they did *use* them.
Reading Moritz Berger it seems to me that now I had begun all this
discussion of killer books e.g.
Very nice but completely wrong. If Schroder BV now declares never
meant to approach *cheat* to M.H. the better. I saw only this motive
for posting such a huge mass of material. If now these killers are
judged as completely in order and not a single poster ever wrote or
thought of *cheat* I would like to retire all my possible writing or
*thinking* :) s.th. like this. Especially that Schroder BV could have
meant or thought s.th. like this. Well I have no problem to give
Schroder BV my personal blessing. Also because Schroder BV expressed
his priority No 1 desire to receive this from me. Well I did give it
then because I like to make presents.
I understand MB that I had to give a lot of money to the commercially
interested before being allowed asking for support. Yes that's
business. I have to admit.
I understand too that having not yet payed I could not be interpreted
as neutral -- no way. --- Commercially neutral --- I would be free to
communicate ***if/(only if)*** I had bought programs of both sides.
Arrggh. That was it what I must have missed in my education. :)
And I must agree on that. Monuments like SSDF, ICCA, Schroder BV
deserve first of all to be protected against any disturbing questions.
I was quite naive on that. Only my longtime read magazine CSS seems to
be free for all sort of attacks. That is now completely too difficult
to understand for me. But perhaps I'll have to learn whole new logic
in the end. Sort of Bergerian stuff. I think I'll have possibilities
to adapt on that one. But first of all I'll have to learn commercial
rules, as they are explained by Moritz as follows:
>Commercial programmers like Ed are much more vulnerable than other
>posters, since they earn their living out of their business and they
>are under a much bigger pressure not to ignore posts but to defend
>themselves against every thinkable attack. That's why I find it simply
>disgusting to blame him for not responding to Mr. ROLF TUESCHEN (the
>one and only) but instead pursuing his business interest by publishing
>some new products.
ROTFL (Rolf)
>ROLF IS NOT EVEN A CUSTOMER OF ED. HE
>DIDN'T GIVE HIM ONE CENT. ROLF ALWAYS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WILL
>NEVER BUY REBEL 8 (unless Ed fulfills several "criteria" of Rolf, e.g.
>playing in Computer-Computer tournaments, that have nothing to do with
>the product itself but with what accounts to more or less esotherical
>ideas of Rolf).
>Ed never accused Marty of cheating, fraud or "whatsoevermore". He just
>published the games as an answer to Martys statement which I have
>quoted above. He also said in the same post that he liked both Marty
>and his program and would everybody recommend to buy it. His goal was
>to achieve a general agreement among the top programmers not to use
>killer books by drawing public attention to this subject. He wanted to
>be able to "stay clean"
ROTFL (Rolf)
> - all he got was WAR.
>Every reasonable person will have to agree that Ed has to refrain from
>any biased postings in this newsgroup in order to remain his
>credibility and not harm his business.
ROTFL (Rolf)
>He has gotten pretty much
>negative emotions from some "defenders" of Mchess and Marty Hirsch
>himself. And this although Ed stayed to the facts and Marty - if
>anybody - threw mud at him! This is also directed to Thorsten Czub:
>Please compare Ed's and Marty's posts. I can mail them to you if I
>still have them around. Who is throwing mud?
(ONLY ROLF, Moritz!!)
>I have found Ed's answers to be concise and sufficient. His service
>and support are outstanding. I AM A CUSTOMER OF SCHROEDER B.V.
ROTFL (Rolf)
>and you
>can bet
ROTFL (Rolf)
>that I am completely satisfied with the product and the
>company.
>I don't share Ed's view on the german CSS magazine or the SSDF - he
>has obvioius commercial interests here.
(ROTFL; Moritz does it go like this commercial -- obvious commercial
-- and what's next?)
> But to link this to the Mchess
>issue is utter nonsense.
>--
>-------------
>Moritz Berger
>ber...@zeus.informatik.uni-bonn.de
>This article may not be reprinted or quoted in the
>"Computer Schach und Spiele" magazine without my prior written consent.
I think all that speaks for itself.
Thanks Moritz for making your point as customer of Schroder BV so very
clear.
Rolf Tueschen
Komputer Korner
It is not worth repeating. A senseless argument. Attack-Defence
Ad Nauseum
--
Ed Schröder
From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen)
On 25 Oct 1996 03:27:35 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- so it falls back on Ed himself who seems to lack sportsmansship!
- Furthermore Ed is cheating with his statistical soutput.
On 28 Oct 1996 03:54:25 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I am writing on a scientific :) analysis of the basic point of E.
Schroder Inc. Along my results this thread will enter history as one
of the smartest PR actions the world has ever known and surely the
first real interactive multi-cultural and multi-logical one.
- Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
On 31 Oct 1996 00:31:39 GMT Tueschen wrote...
- I would have prefered that Ed answered -- than to misuse this group
for commercial product placements.
- I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?
- or to publish 40 games in combination with attacking another
programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
On 3 Nov 1996 14:54:13 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- You know if my grandma wins a journey weekend destination Mallorca --
and afterwards they tell her that she could travel/fly from Munich BUT
she's living in Hamburg ------- I would call this win quite a cheat.
BTW that is what Ed Schroder did with his surprise action. If you are
a cbf format user you WIN Rebel 8 minus 100 DM but you are obliged to
buy more special tools for conversion and his new CDROM perhaps.
On 4 Nov 1996 00:08:35 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I mean for me it was so strange that you came out with your idea just
after the few ethics action against Richard
Acusations...
Insinuations...
Insults...
Allegations...
And now on 8 Nov 1996 03:39:44 GMT Rolf Tueschen writes *other* things:
- Nowhere did I say Schroder BV was lying. Nowhere did I say or say now
s.th. that implicated Schroder BV may be lying.
Rolf, see your own above postings.
- In opposing Schroder BV for misusing these groups for commercial
interests I just follow the published nettiquette for these groups.
Opposing????
Rolf read your own postings, you are making a fool of yourself.
- Nowhere I sayed that Schroder BV did invent those events or cheated
or lied about it.
This is just incredible...
How do you want people to take you seriously anymore?
Read your own statements above!
And now you try to make a fool of Moritz Berger.
Only answering him with ROTFL (Rolling over the floor Laughing)
It seems to be a habit of yours to insult people.
And you have read the nettiquette?
Rolf I like to repeat my questions of 5 Nov 1996 18:30:15 GMT
which you still have not answered.
After your 2 personal insults on me I have contacted you by private
email resulting in many long emails. Right?
I have asked you several times: "Rolf why are you against me?".
I always got the answer "I am not against you".
Does this is in harmony with your latest 2 aggressive postings?
Still you refuse to take back your 2 personal insults on me.
Ok, I can live with that.
But I CAN NOT live with questions you are not willing to answer while
you expect from me that I answer all your questions.
Now in our private emails I asked you the following questions which
were never answered by you:
Because I pretty soon found out that your goal was war only, I tried
to stop you in the following ways:
4.. Rolf I am not in the mood to do this whole thread all over once
more. I mean that by starting a SECOND round you will probably
hurt Marty a lot more than me.
WHY DID I GOT NO ANSWER ON THIS QUESTION ROLF?
DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT MARTY?
TO ME YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ON MARTY OR ME.
YOU JUST WANT WAR WAR WAR...
YOU GO ON, GO ON, GO ON...
YOU PUSH AND PUSH AND PUSH...
Why?
5.. Rolf is it not wise to ask Marty first for his permission before
you start? If you REALLY are a fan of Marty, you should contact
him first. I think you own him that.
Although I do not like to repeat myself it's sometimes
neccesarry:
WHY DID I GOT NO ANSWER ON THIS QUESTION ROLF?
DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT MARTY?
TO ME YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ON MARTY OR ME.
YOU JUST WANT WAR WAR WAR...
Why?
6.. Rolf there is another possibility: You want me to do it all over
again once more and you want *me* to use for that.
No reply from Rolf.
WHY no answer Rolf?
A simple no had been sufficient.
Remember you proudly informed me that you once have misused me
for your own goals. You use people Rolf and I do not like to be
used. Do you?
So the above option is a very valid one for me.
Rolf, now it's your turn to tell us:
- What was in *YOUR* mind when you started this thread?
- Why did you not sent me your questions in private?
- Did you start this thread to hurt me?
- Did you start this thread to hurt Marty?
- the other option you know only...
Now tell us your intentions.
Oh yes you told me in private!
But do you also want to tell it here?
Now that would make my day!
You told me you like the openess of the Internet so much...
Well tell us what you told me in private...
You frequently use the words "free speach".
Did it ever came up in your mind that it is not allowed to misuse
this valuable piece of freedom?
- Ed Schroder -
Moritz Berger
>Dream on,
>or
>grow up.
THIS QUOTE IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.
The original context of this reply from Ed was:
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>Ed Schroeder's theory *some amateur programs and MChess5 are killing
>my Rebel with killeropenings -- and there ist no defense -- so I'll
>never go to a tournament anymore -- it's a waste of time*, this
>hypothesis is
>
>A) to be maintained only at first sight
>B) it's wrong and stupid after some closer looks
>C) so it falls back on Ed himself who seems to lack sportsmansship!
>
So the topic of this answer was: Ed Schroeder doesn't want to
participate in computer vs. computer tournaments BECAUSE OF killer
books (ROLF: "Ed seems to lack sportmanship"). Ed's reply was just:
Come on Rolf, it really doesn't matter that much if I participate or
not. If you want me to play, give me some more convincing arguments.
The reply was not about the effect of killer books on SSDF ratings and
not about the related issue of killing doubles. BTW: Ed named amateur
killer books as a reason "not to go", not MChess Pro!
The topic of this thread ("*The* war of Rolf Tueschen (final part)")
is _not_ about Ed's absence from certain tournaments, but his policy
concerning this newsgroup (commercial interests ...) and the MChess 5
/ killer book topic.
Now Rolf quotes Ed's reply ("Try harder Rolf") in a different context,
making it seem like a cynical answer to Rolfs "questions" about
- Ed's motives in the "anti-MChess-campain"
- Ed's opinion about the "SSDF doesn't kill doubles" issue
- Ed Schröder plays foul be pretending not to be able to post and only
wants to draw attention to his commercial ads in the newsgroup
- Ed Schröder doesn't answer legitimate questions of a "newbie"
If you quote the "try harder Rolf" message as a reply in this context,
you make Ed look like an arrogant idiot. He doesn't deserve this kind
of treatment from what he contributed to an important discussion in
this newsgroup.
Of course, Rolf will just continue to roll laughing on the floor ...
this is much more interesting than computer chess, maybe he wants to
start his own newsgroup about the "ROTFL" topic?
Stop trying harder, Rolf, stop trying harder. You did well enough :-(
Rolf W. Tueschen
The following may be interesting for all readers because usenet etiquette
and some variations in communication over post and email are discussed.
For all experts who know all that: you may stop reading right here.
---- maybe big big SNIP ----- Sorry having disturbed you; Rolf Tueschen.
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote: (I received on Nov 10!!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First I would like to ask for understanding not quoting this 7 pages
letter. But these points which have public interest will all be answered.
I only quote all strange or false assumptions/sayings of ES up in a row as
they were posted. They begin with > or >>. ES means Schroder BV. In between
I adjust some terms of my posts to the understanding what topic it is.
emails vs postings
>nobody asked me not even in private! I never received your questions until here in RGCC. I have answered them immediately.
presentation of *the* games
>>So no thousands of games and no selections were made.
the idea
>RT wrote... How the idea/assumption (kill/cheat) came into ES's mind?
>>I explained my feelings and observations in detail to everybody here in RGCC.
collecting posts
>From one of your previous postings I learned that you had collected *ALL* postings from the subject
>It all started after a posting of Marty which I answered. Now did I plan Marty's posting?
language
>Rolf, what is "s.th."? Let me guess: Stone Throwing :)
about motives for the idea
>I explained this in full detail to everybody here in RGCC. It seems that you are the only one who did get the point.
why the timing of the idea now?
>(no answer)
a comprehensible answer for the idea?
>Rolf if I ask for BETA testers then that is NOT OF YOUR BUSINESS!
the black results of the matches in the presentation
>> they are not as clear as the results of the white matches.
a good idea to select only those?
>The published results were the complete matches of: ...
>Don't you like results Rolf?
>>The results I posted are in complete harmony with the huge victories SSDF got.
what *harmony* means in this case?
>Rubbish Rolf...
don't own the programs in question. As you could have read from my
questionairy filled to *win in your surprise action*.
>Huh??
>You say: Perhaps OTHERS may test ?????????
>You say: I don't own the programs in question ????????????????
>Dear Rolf, you did not test / checked it yourself ?????
>Do you have no results ????????????????
>And *YOU* want to blame *ME* ??????????????
>Ever heard of proof / evidence / facts before you attack somebody ?????
Although questions remain. Does SSDF present the outcome of such strange
matches?
>Now don't change the subject Rolf!
The word *helpless* older machines seems to me part of an interesting PR
action nothing more.
>Rolf do you officially acusing me for planning this whole subject as a marketing strategy???
> Don't you think you need proof for such heavy allegations? Now tell me!!
> I *NEVER* received your questions until your posting appeared in RGCC.
>After your 2 personal insults on me I have contacted you by private email resulting in many long emails. Right?
>I have asked you several times: "Rolf why are you against me?". I always got the answer "I am not against you".
>Does this is in harmony with your latest 2 aggressive postings? Still you refuse to take back your 2 personal insults on me.
My commentary.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Why using emails to hide behind the curtain in an open medium?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nowhere I could find the rule after which I had to send email BEFORE
posting questions. I really didn't know. And can't still believe that ES
could think that a real newbie knew this rule. Who is the expert?
The endless repetition of not receiving email and directly answering is
false and hypocrytical. Because I made it very clear that I didn't
understand these emails which were sent to omit open answers. But I never
got an email which explained the need to email and NOT to answer those
questions in public. I didn't like those behind the curtain actions. I got
no public answer as could be read in my second posting where I wrote that I
was in an email-war.
Now no longer newbie, I ask if it is of any sense to deal with hidden
emails if one side wants open answers. And then not even answering the
questions per email but changing completely topic by forcing personal
things which would be better let to natural growth. I repeat not one single
openly posted questions were answered by ES in his private emails.
But in the end ES tried to force me even to the telephone.
Now I must point out this strange behaviour. I'm happy to enter this open
medium and someone tries to go into private -- without demonstrating any
need to do so. I simply don't like being FORCED into that sort of
communication. I asked several times for a plausible explanation -- without
any answer.
Killerbooks
~~~~~~~~
I omit this chapter for some strange reasons. I wasn't forced to but I
think that perhaps in future I'll understand better why this was the wish
of so many people. Sure -- business is very important. But it's completely
against free speech on Internet. Commercials *Yes*, but some questionings
*No*. And I have no advantages at all from this self-censoring. Oh, where
are those open and free discussions over Indonesia ... :)
Strange logic
~~~~~~~~~
I read the very strange arguing that if I hadn't done any testings myself,
even owned those programs, I'd not allowed to do any speculations, put any
questions. First the testings. Then *come back*. Never thought a programmer
could be so misled in his thinking. BTW *I* never proposed other status
than that of a newbie.
But dear reader: it's impossible to believe, but ES continued to email me
the simple contra: *I don't believe you (that you are a newbie)*. Finally
ES proposed a somewhat medical diagnosis why he strangely thought this way.
But details should not discussed in public.
Insults
~~~~~
Because it's an open juridical case, I only declare the following. I wrote
in the meantime in two different posts, that for me --- after reading ES
*cheat, fraud are not my words* and *the MChess books are correct, fair and
not at all cheat or something else* --- the whole question is of no value
anymore. I never believed that they *were* cheating AND I never wrote: ES
has written these books are cheating. I know exactly what I wrote. I agrre
I wrote something using the word *cheat*. But the rest must be left to
german court.
BTW, I feel that ES fooled me at least not directly writing these clear
words either openly or in email. For me his motives to discuss a book which
is fair and correct are not understandable till this very moment. Why
should I lie? To hide my maybe stupidiness? No, I have the right to begin
as a new and innocent pupil.
Perhaps the two involved programmers smoked peace pipes as well.
Now only me I'm inhibited to smoke some mmhh special pipe. Why?
The commercials
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought that commercials were not decent style in newsgroups. Support and
discussion for new programs is correct. But writing a simple content of a
CD over 3 pages is simply not in order. Am I the only one to complain?
Everyone should visit ES websites as I did it.
That were my comments on all those mixed up hush hush writing of ES.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's see if we'll find some more open questions.
>1.. I asked you Rolf if it was your intention from the very first start
> to create a flame war on me in
Till friday Nov 8 I even didn't know what this was. I asked our hotline.
And I had a big laugh because I always thought this was a very complicated
technical thing. My answer was always a clear NO.
>2.. You are very very angry about my postings about the Mchess5
> book. I am right Rolf?
Yes and no. Yes because I still find the point is not proven (for me). No,
because if it were proved ....
>3.. Did you look at my arguments, have you EVER replayed ONE SINGLE
> game I have posted in RGCC? Do you really UNDERSTAND what the
> whole subject is about?
First yes indeed. With analysis and all. Second how could an expert ask
such stupid question to a newcomer, sorry even not comer because I'm really
innocent in programs details.
>4.. Rolf I am not in the mood to do this whole thread all over once
> more. I mean that by starting a SECOND round you will probably
> hurt Marty a lot more than me.
Well simple answer: If I received any meaningful explanation ...
I don't want to hurt anybody. How could I??
>5.. Rolf is it not wise to ask Marty first for his permission before
> you start? If you REALLY are a fan of Marty, you should contact
> him first. I think you own him that.
ES seems to be caught in longtime partymembership thinking. It's
unbelievable.
>6.. Rolf there is another possibility: You want me to do it all over
> again once more to hurt Marty and you want *me* to use for that.
No not at all for that motive. Why did ES not quickly answer my open
questions even per email?? Then those pseudo questions like this No 6 were
not there.
Important correction:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Remember you proudly informed me that you once have misused me
> for your own goals.
No not at all. This is complete -- ES wrote himself -- rubbish.
I declare never having used or misused someone on the net for my own goals.
On the contrary: E misused the innocence of visitors of his website. Why?
I wrote elsewhere: when you tell someone, please fill up this questionary
then you'll receive a surprise ... Then the surprise is a 100 DM bill to
buy a program (Rebel) for 98 DM. But every cbf user had to buy by force the
plus tool to do any concersions. And so on. Well I would never call this
*cheat* in a pure sense. But I felt trapped from the beginning. Now from
the beginning in this group all my posts tried in a more or less satirical
way to explain this to ES. But I also wrote the same verdict per email. But
ES never caught the point. Sure -- his intention is to make money -- in
these groups too. But that was not good regarding the unwritten rules in
usenet.
Another behind the curtain hidden action
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I also informed Marty about Rolf's upcoming plans with me.
>I asked Marty to stop Rolf.
Very interesting. Now some events are understandable for me. The whole
email war not only by ES. ES must have *asked* a lot of people. Well that's
business. But that's not ok in usenet. Period.
Confusion endlessly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>- Did you start this thread to hurt Marty?
>Now tell us your intentions.
Another correction
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Oh yes you told me in private!
I never told anything special to ES in private email but I always opposed
this hidden dealing. Everywhere I wrote that I liked the possibility to
communicate in this medium very much. So what?
Free speach
~~~~~~~~~
>You frequently use the words "free speach".
>Did it ever came up in your mind that it is not allowed to misuse
>this valuable piece of freedom?
>- Ed Schroder -
Very ridicule reproach to me. Because I wrote a long post for this topic.
But ES (Schroder BV) clearly and with proof did misuse usenet for his
commercial interests. No doubt about that. Sure that one doesn't like to be
disturbed in these procedures. But I never had intention to act with misuse
of the freedom to speak. I think ES has to understand this. That direct
commercials are not decent. All other activities are not discussed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no war from my side. It's really strange to read this. But
questions are not at all finished.
So after closing the killer topic for now, perhaps after a rest to sort
commercial procedures and with a comment, we could read in this group the
real surprise action that Schroder BV and first war minister of state in
transylvania R. Tueschen smoke some hidden stuff in their pipe. But
questions will always be needed, and on the net they are per definitionem
half part of the event. Whithout questions -- stupid or intelligent --
these groups were without material.
For me personally it would be a sign for normalization if ES could answer
some questions I wrote BEFORE receiving this long post in *In-built tools
of engines*. But they are not posted especially for ES. If really we could
have an open discussion over all topics it would be progress for all sides:
experts and amateurs/users.
This was written spontaneously after receiving a long post. It should not
be mistaken as sort of juridical defense paper.
--------------
brucemo
Rolf W. Tueschen wrote:
>
> Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
It is very bad form to post private email in a newsgroup without the
author's consent.
bruce
john quill taylor
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>...
>I think Schroder BV misused these groups for commercial interests.
>Period.
>...
By "these groups" I assume you mean rec.games.chess.computer.
That is a very strong statement. But to "think" is not to "know."
Still, nothing a programmer does *within* his program (smart books,
a.k.a. killer books) that might possibly concern ethics is as serious
as what a programmer does *outside* of his program (creation of a
falsely-high rating, modifying or tampering with supposedly impartial
listings, slandering other programs and programmers in public, etc.).
What has emerged is that many very impartial chess players still
disagree about the concept of "killer" books. I tend to believe
that there can be no "killer" books unless there are inferior
books to be killed, and that if a program can find a weakness it
must exploit that weakness. But I also believe that targeting a
particular program's weaknesses just after its release to gain sales
would be unethical. Yet there is no proof that anyone has done this.
There is also no proof that misusing this newsgroup would help
a commercial interest. I still plan to buy both programs, and I
am not much influenced by the rhetoric.
__
john quill taylor / /\
writer at large / / \
Hewlett-Packard, Storage Systems Division __ /_/ /\ \
Boise, Idaho U.S.A. /_/\ __\ \ \_\ \
e-mail: jqta...@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com \ \ \/ /\\ \ \/ /
Telephone: (208) 396-2328 (MST = GMT - 7) \ \ \/ \\ \ /
Snail Mail: Hewlett-Packard \ \ /\ \\ \ \
11413 Chinden Blvd \ \ \ \ \\ \ \
Boise, Idaho 83714 \ \ \_\/ \ \ \
Mailstop 852 \ \ \ \_\/
\_\/
"When in doubt, do as doubters do." - jqt -
haiti, rwanda, cuba, bosnia, ... we have a list,
where is our schindler?
Ed Schröder
On 7 Nov 1996 06:14:23 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I think Schroder BV misused these groups for commercial interests.
Period.
Accusations...
Insinuations...
Insults...
Allegations...
You have damaged my good name.
Now correct it...
No more, no less.
and close this chapter.
- Ed Schroder -
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>(after having read Komputer's post only and Email from Schroder BV)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
>
>I think Schroder BV misused these groups for commercial interests.
>Period.
>
Ed Schröder
From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen)
On 25 Oct 1996 03:27:35 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- so it falls back on Ed himself who seems to lack sportsmansship!
- Furthermore Ed is cheating with his statistical soutput.
On 28 Oct 1996 03:54:25 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I am writing on a scientific :) analysis of the basic point of E.
Schroder Inc. Along my results this thread will enter history as one
of the smartest PR actions the world has ever known and surely the
first real interactive multi-cultural and multi-logical one.
- Does ES show us excactly only those games he played?
Or did he play thousands showing only those fitting his thesis?
On 31 Oct 1996 00:31:39 GMT Tueschen wrote...
- I would have prefered that Ed answered -- than to misuse this group
for commercial product placements.
- I will come back to Ed's revolutionary new advertisement politics
which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
lost in the jungle and try to start my product placement on the net,
give me a short reply *Can everyone understand me?
- or to publish 40 games in combination with attacking another
programmer for cheating, fraud and whatsoevermore.
On 3 Nov 1996 14:54:13 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- You know if my grandma wins a journey weekend destination Mallorca --
and afterwards they tell her that she could travel/fly from Munich BUT
she's living in Hamburg ------- I would call this win quite a cheat.
BTW that is what Ed Schroder did with his surprise action. If you are
a cbf format user you WIN Rebel 8 minus 100 DM but you are obliged to
buy more special tools for conversion and his new CDROM perhaps.
On 4 Nov 1996 00:08:35 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I mean for me it was so strange that you came out with your idea just
after the few ethics action against Richard
On 7 Nov 1996 06:14:23 GMT Rolf Tueschen wrote...
- I think Schroder BV misused these groups for commercial interests.
Period.
Accusations...
Insinuations...
Insults...
Allegations...
You have damaged my good name.
Now correct it...
No more, no less.
and close this chapter.
- Ed Schroder -
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
>
>(I *translate* because quoting would not be possible)
>
>*** Schroder BV never wanted
> -- with those killerbook games and so on --
>to give people the idea/impression that the MChess opening book
>was something / (sort of tool) which could be called *cheat or fraud*
>in any interpretation. ***
>
>On the contrary the Ed Schroder BV interpretes MY newbie-questioning
>that the Ed Schroder BV may have MEANT probably s.th. like this as
>sort of an insult. :)
>
>But this wasn't my intention.
>
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Rolf W. Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> schrieb im
Beitrag <55ua20$4...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
Hi Rolf,
I don't see any fair reason for your continuing attacks concerning Ed.
> In opposing Schroder BV for misusing these groups for commercial
> interests I just follow the published nettiquette for these groups.
As far as I read this thread, I never detected any reasonable argument this
kind of imputations.
I completely agree with Moritz Berger that in contrast to Ed, who showed
some remarkable facts, you have nothing much to offer than agressive
suspicions.
Seems at least you are no poor little newbie concerning conspiracy theories
:-)))
> Which I read at first before entering this group. Commercials simply
> are not decent. That is complete different to the meaning of lies or
> cheats. My observation led me to the conclusion that Schroder BV
> started to prepare commercials for Rebel8 beginning with USING very
> cleverly some events from end of august on.
O yes! Very clever indeed! Reminds me of a German TV soap opera where
"Alfred" always was feeling the reds will take over soon ... Or were it
those insidious little green guys from Mars? ... ;-)
What do you think Schroeder is planning next?
Undermining the internet?
> Nowhere I sayed that Schroder BV did invent those events or cheated or
> lied about it. I observed that they did *use* them.
Use them for what?
If you pretend to see something you should at least be concrete.
And if you try to be concrete you should prove the point or stop bothering
the newsgroup
> Reading Moritz Berger it seems to me that now I had begun all this
> discussion of killer books e.g.
Seems you haven't understood too much of what Moritz said...
> Well I have no problem to give
> Schroder BV my personal blessing. Also because Schroder BV expressed
> his priority No 1 desire to receive this from me. Well I did give it
> then because I like to make presents.
Too kind of you! Everybody here is longing for your blessing and for your
generous presents all the time :-)))
> I understand MB that I had to give a lot of money to the commercially
> interested before being allowed asking for support. Yes that's
> business. I have to admit.
> I understand too that having not yet payed I could not be interpreted
> as neutral -- no way. --- Commercially neutral --- I would be free to
> communicate ***if/(only if)*** I had bought programs of both sides.
> Arrggh. That was it what I must have missed in my education. :)
If you only made the impression you knew what you are talking of all the
time this already would be fine with me.
Perhaps Ed really was right encouriging you to try harder.
> And I must agree on that. Monuments like SSDF, ICCA, Schroder BV
> deserve first of all to be protected against any disturbing questions.
> I was quite naive on that. Only my longtime read magazine CSS seems to
> be free for all sort of attacks. That is now completely too difficult
> to understand for me. But perhaps I'll have to learn whole new logic
> in the end. Sort of Bergerian stuff. I think I'll have possibilities
> to adapt on that one. But first of all I'll have to learn commercial
> rules, as they are explained by Moritz as follows:
>
> >Commercial programmers like Ed are much more vulnerable than other
> >posters, since they earn their living out of their business and they
> >are under a much bigger pressure not to ignore posts but to defend
> >themselves against every thinkable attack. That's why I find it simply
> >disgusting to blame him for not responding to Mr. ROLF TUESCHEN (the
> >one and only) but instead pursuing his business interest by publishing
> >some new products.
> ROTFL (Rolf)
You got nothing of the point, ok.
Perhaps it's wrong to encourage you to try harder.
Perhaps trying harder will only result in "arguments" like the following:
> >ROLF IS NOT EVEN A CUSTOMER OF ED. HE
> >DIDN'T GIVE HIM ONE CENT. ROLF ALWAYS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WILL
> >NEVER BUY REBEL 8 (unless Ed fulfills several "criteria" of Rolf, e.g.
> >playing in Computer-Computer tournaments, that have nothing to do with
> >the product itself but with what accounts to more or less esotherical
> >ideas of Rolf).
Moritz meant: commercial programmers expose themselves much more than
others, because everybody is watching what they are saying and if their
arguments are true or not.
Perhaps you can follow the argument that this is so, even if you, Rolf (the
one and only) still have not bought one or the other of these programs.
> >Ed never accused Marty of cheating, fraud or "whatsoevermore". He just
> >published the games as an answer to Martys statement which I have
> >quoted above. He also said in the same post that he liked both Marty
> >and his program and would everybody recommend to buy it. His goal was
> >to achieve a general agreement among the top programmers not to use
> >killer books by drawing public attention to this subject. He wanted to
> >be able to "stay clean"
> ROTFL (Rolf)
> > - all he got was WAR.
I argued against killer books as well. Did I miss a "war"?
Chess World WAR III or something? ;-)
Don't you think it might be a bit less dramatic?
Killer books are not what I would call fair. But I can live with the fact
that others obviously seem to regard them as wonderful examples of perfect
fairness.
So what?
Are the facts Ed showed hurting your preferred viewas so much that you feel
surrounded by WAR and warriors? :-)))
> >Every reasonable person will have to agree that Ed has to refrain from
> >any biased postings in this newsgroup in order to remain his
> >credibility and not harm his business.
> ROTFL (Rolf)
?
> >He has gotten pretty much
> >negative emotions from some "defenders" of Mchess and Marty Hirsch
> >himself. And this although Ed stayed to the facts and Marty - if
> >anybody - threw mud at him! This is also directed to Thorsten Czub:
> >Please compare Ed's and Marty's posts. I can mail them to you if I
> >still have them around. Who is throwing mud?
> (ONLY ROLF, Moritz!!)
Again: if you try so hard to be ironic you better should make the
impression you understood anything of the sentences you are commenting like
this :-)
> I think all that speaks for itself.
May well be :-)))
...
> Rolf Tueschen
>
Yours Dirk
Rolf Czedzak
brucemo wrote: <3287A5...@nwlink.com>
b> Rolf W. Tueschen wrote:
b> >
b> > Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
b>
b> It is very bad form to post private email in a newsgroup without the
b> author's consent.
Hi Bruce,
why do you think, someone who hasn't learned these basics about
handling of private notes from parent and/or school, will accept
it from you?
Anyway I don't think it is a good idea to show interest to someone who
has just found a new flamimg ground.
And to Ed: I don't think RWT is going to damage your good name. You are
answering, that keeps the thread alive. If a tree would answer, the barking
dog would stay forever. The longer the thread goes, the more you lose.
Just my 2cnts.
Rolf
Ed Schröder
Rolf,
How can I answer questions if I do not have them?
Rememeber I informed you that your questions toke 4 days to arrive on
my server. Now did I not answer your (accusing) questions after that?
Here is a copy of the email to you (which you never answered)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rolf,
I just saw your posting "The games of ES" (or so) appeared on my server.
I noticed that your sending date was 28-10-96(??) Perhaps you do not
realize but if you post a message it normally takes one day before it
will be visible to people.
In your case it took 4(!!) days to arrive on my server. This tells me
that your internet provider has a very low priority for Usenet. If you
want to participate in the newsgroup you better can find yourself a
better provider. Four days is unacceptable slow.
Your announced second posting is not visible to me.
When did you post it?
Maybe these 4 days explains why you always repeated to me: "Answer me on
the net". Right?
So it's important to know that it takes some time BEFORE everybody can
read your posting. My provider is fast 2-4 hours, normal is one day, bad
is 2 days.
In the meantime I have answered you on the net.
Just tell me when my answer appear on your server.
I also mailed + replied on Usenet.
I have included my answer in this email too.
- Ed Schroder -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You probably (??) ASSUMED that after you posted your questions in RGCC
this should be immediately visible to me. Right?
And in your private emails to me you were pushing and pushing:
"Ed, answer me on the net!"
"Ed, answer me on the net!"
"Ed, answer me on the net!"
"Ed, answer me on the net!"
Right?
Well, how can I answer questions which I can not see...
Maybe you can?
I also have seen your postings in RGCM asking people about server
delay times. So don't use your newbie excuse.
So you *KNEW* that it takes time before postings are visible to people.
So how can you blame me for not answering questions?
About intentions
----------------
Ed Schroder wrote...
: Now tell us your intentions.
: Oh yes you told me in private!
: But do you also want to tell it here?
: You told me you like the openess of the Internet so much...
: Well tell us what you told me in private...
Rolf Tueschen answered...
: I never told anything special to ES in private email but I always
: opposed this hidden dealing. Everywhere I wrote that I liked the
: possibility to communicate in this medium very much. So what?
Well since you like openess so much I like to quote you:
"And after this -- after all these mean actions against one of your
collegues, you will have to apologize. But for me then it is not done
with a simple apologize."
"But time has come now. I said you that I will continue to argue in the
groups without further *simple* jokes. But your assumption that then
there is SILENCE is wrong. You will find in future that wrestling a
little bit with SPORTS is nothing against the moment your scientific
errors are laid bare."
which told me sufficient about your initial intentions.
No?
Remember I offered you TWICE to phone you on my expenses and talk it
all out. You never (as usual) responded on difficult questions.
Why?
Perhaps you only wanted war?
Or as you said "you will have to apologize"?
For what?
- Ed Schroder -
Rolf W. Tueschen
<rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>(Rolf W. Tueschen)
-biggest snip---
Declaration after threatening per email and confusion in some posting
I do NOT retire one single line of my postings concerning Schroder BV.
But I had made clear -- already -- that after some corrections from
Schroder BV I would no longer REPEAT some of my writings. Details are in
the post from Nov 10.
To make it very clear: I simply won't give in the Schroder BV threat to sue
me if I would NOT *rebuild his damaged good name* (Schroder BV in private
email). Period!
Rolf Tueschen
Rolf W. Tueschen
"Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>In the meantime I have answered you on the net.
>And in your private emails to me you were pushing and pushing:
> "Ed, answer me on the net!"
> "Ed, answer me on the net!"
> "Ed, answer me on the net!"
> "Ed, answer me on the net!"
>Right?
>Well, how can I answer questions which I can not see...
>Maybe you can?
Ed, you have always a new surprise for me.
Maybe it could help you if I quote one of my famous questions again. And
what I'd like most -- you NOW answering in a more or less scientifical way,
ok?
Quote from my post Oct 25 (that gives 18 days transmission time to you):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Furthermore Ed is cheating with his statistical soutput.
Simple explanation: you cannot kill ten MCHESS vs REBELL wins for
white with same moves but you could take away if you like exact
doubles of this sort:
Game 1 MCHESS5 vs REBEL8 1:0 with GAME 2 REBEL8 vs MCHESS 1:0, if all
plys are the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now you have my supposed *insult* No 1. Please keep cool and answer/explain
me. I'm sure we are able to discuss completely fair without any
reservation.
BTW we're not at schooll. So all available help is allowed to answer my
very simple question. You must not at all find an answer yourself, ok?
I would accept answers from everywhere, from all your supporters -- even
from Mars, ok Dirk? :)
But if you couldn't find, please forget your killerbook-games-freed
statistics (No 1). Later on we'll pass to No 2.
Rolf Tueschen
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> mclane wrote:
> > =
>
> > Komputer Korner wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Schr=F6der wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > : which startet end summer with crying *HELP Can anyone hear me, I'm
Are we witnessing the slow disintegration of a once fine human being ?
KK, you need help, fast.
Chris Whittington
> =
>
>
> =
>
> -- =
Enrique Irazoqui
Rolf Czedzak <r...@viking.ruhr.com> wrote in article
<6Khb0...@09.viking.ruhr.com>...
Yes Ed, Rolf is right. If he barks it's because you are riding. Forget
about it, it's not worth it.
Enrique
Komputer Korner
Ed, it is now November 13 at 2300 hrs. Can you let me know when you receive
this. BTW, your good name is not threatened by unwarranted attacks.
Komputer Korner
Eran
Hi Ed,
Do not pay attention to other stupid people in the
rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup. Just ignore them; they would become
ashamed of themselves later. It is not worth. Do not waste your time.
Just spend your time wisely in your chess programming development.
Good luck,
Eran :-)
Rolf W. Tueschen
Ed Schröder
From: Eran <mr...@earthlink.net>
: Hi Ed,
: Good luck,
: Eran :-)
Yes, everybody is telling me the same.
Also Rob Kemper my cooperator has put back *some* sense in me...
You can relax Rolf it's your lucky day...
I want to thank all RGCC readers for backing me up.
- Ed Schroder -
Rolf W. Tueschen
>brucemo wrote: <3287A5...@nwlink.com>
>b> Rolf W. Tueschen wrote:
>b> >
>b> > Ed Schroder BV wrote via private email the following:
>b>
>b> It is very bad form to post private email in a newsgroup without the
>b> author's consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preface, Bruce I only respond to a quoting supposedly comimg from you.
I never read the original. Only the quoting as above given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, Bruce, I try a second time to answer one of your pompous
jumps into a thread which you obviously didn't understand.
And I tell you, that for the third jump I no longer could take you for
serious, when you comment neighbour topics of your programming field.
Here is my explanation:
I was under heavy attacks from Schroder BV for the last weeks. Schroder BV
threatened only per email. I should take back all my *insulting* posts.
But I didn't do that. Why? Because all my lines were -- at the time they
were written -- correct.
I made statement, that only the point that Schroder BV had objected to M.
H. that he cheated or s.th. else, wouldn't be repeated. Because Schroder
made clear he didn't mean that.
(BTW I could prove a lot of similar posts from other authors -- ranging
from *unsportive to unfair* -- but Schroder BV didn't expressively.)
Because I didn't know how to handle this mixed-up war by email with totally
other postings, I *quoted* some email content.
But NEVER in the original form!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the contrary Schroder BV DID quote some of my lines in the original
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
form.
~~~~
So conclusion seems to be allowed that you again jumped into s.th. you
couldn't juge correctly.
Please stop this. I would be very sorry if you again did it a third time.
We don't have that much of you expert programmers. It would be a real loss
if you developed such bad habits without being forced to. Or do you try to
imitate Dirk who seems to be so troubled by his *rigorosum* :) that he
started to comment lines to me that I hadn't written at all? And he wrote
he did see some green men from Mars if I understood him right. :)
But if you'd like to help your collegue Ed so much, it would be better if
you found an answer to my question No 1. Because he really can't find.
Don't missunderstand me. It's not because I'm so important that one had to
answer any questions of mine, but it's important for Ed. Because his
complete killer games procedure is based on this point....
If you never wrote that -- mentioned above, please excuse me. As relatively
new here on the net I don't understand yet those actions by some *friends*.
Some writers seem to like to hide themselves.
Rolf Tueschen
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On 17 Nov 1996 07:47:51 GMT, "Ed Schröder" <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Ed, it is now November 13 at 2300 hrs. Can you let me know when you receive
>>this.
>Sunday 09:00
I did read this at Sunday 08:45 (also in the Netherlands)
Wow, I'm a Time Traveler ! :-)
Greetings, hgj
Ed Schröder
"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Ed, it is now November 13 at 2300 hrs. Can you let me know when you receive
>
>Komputer Korner
Sunday 09:00
- Ed -
Emmanuel Marin
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
[Two lines from Bruce:]
>Preface, Bruce I only respond to a quoting supposedly comimg from you.
>I never read the original. Only the quoting as above given.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In this case, Bruce, I try a second time to answer one of your pompous
>jumps into a thread which you obviously didn't understand.
So you read two lines only from someone and then attack this someone
for answering without 'obviously' understanding the thread. Did you
feel the pain while shooting in your foot ?
Do you know that a short search at DejaNews would have given
you the complete posting instead of only the two lines you choose
to base your rants upon ?
Do you realize your behaviour on this newsgroup is so preposterous
you've managed to make me post here for the first time for a long
time ?
Am I the only one to be fed up with the pathological way
you argue with others ? If you're a newbie, you'll soon
learn that "silence gives consent" is a motto that does
not work on Usenet.
Can you provide at least one solid argument that does not rely
on rhetoric only to make your point ? Do you have a point to
make, btw ? Can you write one of these questions "no one wants
[allegedly] to answer" here, in less than 2 lines ? Are you really
interested in an answer ?
Emmanuel Marin
Paris, France
Harald Faber
Hello Ed,
I think I have an interesting aspect to tell you:
ESd> Rolf read your own postings, you are making a fool of yourself.
That's the point. Give a damn for what Rolf writes
ESd> And now you try to make a fool of Moritz Berger.
Doesn't stand for quality, you agree? :-)
Seems to me that Rolf only wants discussion/answers or whatever, but he
can't be interested in nice talk.
ESd> Rolf, now it's your turn to tell us:
Bloody hell, protect us he does what you suggest!
ESd> Now tell us your intentions.
Fun in provoking people without anything proven? ;-)
Forget it, Ed, no one here is taking for serious what this foolish guy
writes.
Maybe if also nobody replies his, excuse me for this word, f***ing mails,
he will disappear. In german we call it Selbstreinigung des Netzes, may
translate it with the net cleans itself, of course by flamig etc by other
members of the net...
His alleged newbie-state doesn't excuse anything
For me I would like this thread to be finished, I don't want any answer of
Rolf which is also many kB big and means nothing. I wonder what he is
working with so much time to write that much bullshit.
Ciao and see ya
Harald
--
john quill taylor
TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:
>...
>Please stop this.
>...
Please let's stop THIS!
It seems to me that, at worst, Ed merely ran out of patience;
and, at best, Rolf simply ran out of Prozac. (1/64 ;-)