EUROCHESS Scandal
Komputer Korner
Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
EUROCHESS
cheating him out of $35,000 U.S. is backed up by at least 2 others. The
whole thing is before the courts in Germany but the bottom line is that
because it is too large an amount for small claims court, even if Marty
wins the case, after legal fees how much will he benefit? You have all
read about Marty's story and it basically boiled down to him providing
M-Chess 5 product to EUROCHESS and not getting paid for it. To top it
all
off, Eurochess then bottomed out its price on M-Chess 5 to hurt sales of
M-Chess 6. If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
aggrieved
then this whole episode damages us all and the silence about this is
deafening on this newsgroup. There is an increasing amount of criminal
business behaviour around the world and a lot of it is caused by the
fact
that court systems are are so tied up that it is almost useless to
try to recover money if the amount is over the small claims limit in
that country. I can't legally call for a boycott of EUROCHESS, but other
commercial programmers should definitely think about the consequences of
this whole episode. Silence only makes matters worse. What do you think
fellow komputers?
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer.
brucemo
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
> Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
> EUROCHESS
What would you have people say? And why do you feel the need to be
careful?
bruce
Ed Schroder
From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
Subject: EUROCHESS Scandal
: Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
: EUROCHESS
: cheating him out of $35,000 U.S. is backed up by at least 2 others. The
All I can say and want to say is that EuroChess is the only dealer of
mine who needs to pay in advance when he wants new merchandize.
If Eurochess by court is proven to be guilty I will remove Eurochess
from my dealer list.
- Ed Schroder -
: Komputer Korner
mclane
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Komputer Korner wrote:
>>
>> Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
>> EUROCHESS
>What would you have people say? And why do you feel the need to be
>careful?
>bruce
Yes - thats strange for me too.
You don't know stamer, you don't live in the country where ther crime
took part.
Why do you have to be careful.
Don't be that shy, KK.
mclane
Ed Schroder <rebc...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
>All I can say and want to say is that EuroChess is the only dealer of
>mine who needs to pay in advance when he wants new merchandize.
>If Eurochess by court is proven to be guilty I will remove Eurochess
>from my dealer list.
>- Ed Schroder -
That is a fine gesture.
Thanks.
>: Komputer Korner
Lonnie
Hi ya' all.
Sorry to hear about Marty getting pegged by Eurochess. It does happen. If anyone
recalls my extoling of the now defunct PBM. They did the same thing to Marty in that
they didn't pay him for a good amount of copies of MChess subsequently allowing them
to have the cheapest prices around.
같같같
Lonnie
^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
^^^^^ ^^B^ ^^^^
^^^^^^ ^^^^
-- A Bee in a carrot
patch.
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<3317C1...@netcom.ca>...
I think you should be a lot more careful.
There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented its
case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world, and,
with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court action,
and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to point to
these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing giving
$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
slice of Marty's total business.
I presume that part of the problem is that there are limited numbers of
re-sellers with any clout in Germany. Ossi deals with Genius. Schroeder
sells direct, Niggeman and Gambit stock everything, so if Marty wants to
get a look in he has to start dealing on unfavourable terms with a less
well known distributor, who presumably refuses to stock his product unless
its on full credit, probably sale or return as well.
Its a well known law to apply to foreign distributors: they pay every
invoice except the last one. And recovery by legal action in a foreign
country is *very* difficult.
Make them pay up front. By credit card if necessary.
Professional distributors will always kill amateur businessmen. They start
off nice and charming, get the goods on credit, and then they fall into
various categories:
1. Don't pay in the credit period. this applies to all of them
2. Only pay after you chase the debt yourself by letter
3. Only pay when you chase by telephone
4. Only pay when they want more product
5. Only pay when you threaten them with legal action
6. Only pay when they get the solicitors letter
7. Only pay just before the court case
8. Never pay because you gave up chasing them
Its been going on since time immemorial.
For one-man band and smallish distributors you should think very carefully
before allowing any credit. Even large well established ones can go bust on
you.
> Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
> EUROCHESS
> cheating him out of $35,000 U.S. is backed up by at least 2 others. The
> whole thing is before the courts in Germany but the bottom line is that
> because it is too large an amount for small claims court, even if Marty
> wins the case, after legal fees how much will he benefit? You have all
> read about Marty's story and it basically boiled down to him providing
> M-Chess 5 product to EUROCHESS and not getting paid for it. To top it
> all
> off, Eurochess then bottomed out its price on M-Chess 5 to hurt sales of
> M-Chess 6. If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
> aggrieved
> then this whole episode damages us all
Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
> and the silence about this is
> deafening on this newsgroup.
Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
> There is an increasing amount of criminal
> business behaviour around the world and a lot of it is caused by the
> fact
Mostly its caused by immoral people.
Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
company.
By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
advanced the credit in the first place.
> that court systems are are so tied up that it is almost useless to
> try to recover money if the amount is over the small claims limit in
> that country. I can't legally call for a boycott of EUROCHESS,
You can call for anything you want. But it'ld be pretty damn stupid to do
so.
> but other
> commercial programmers should definitely think about the consequences of
> this whole episode. Silence only makes matters worse. What do you think
> fellow komputers?
You don't know all the facts. Marty may be wholly correct, but the other
side may also have some points of their own, which you don't know about.
If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither do you,
then you are participating in a public humiliation which is extremely
damaging to them.
I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
Chris Whittington
Don Fong
In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented its
>case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
that's true. but it's not Marty Hirsch's fault that EUROCHESS
hasn't presented its side.
>It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world, and,
>with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court action,
>and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to point to
>these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
his story on a newsgroup?
>Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing giving
>$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
>for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
>slice of Marty's total business.
perhaps he was too trusting. or perhaps the decision was made by
someone else.
[...]
>> If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
>> aggrieved then this whole episode damages us all
>
>Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
>credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
it damages us because it is unjust. it damages us because it
means that Hirsch has to spend time dealing with legal hassles
instead of working on improving his program. whether or not this is
a new thing is irrelevant to whether it "damages us all".
[...]
>Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
cmon, this isn't a trial. it is a public discussion.
and EUROCHESS is free to join in if they want.
[...]
>Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
>company.
>By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
>advanced the credit in the first place.
i have to disagree. from your above statements, i think it is
impossible to predict 100% who will be honest. in the case at hand,
perhaps it was bad judgment - i don't really know. nevertheless
if Hirsch entered into a business agreement in good faith and the
other party defaulted, then the other party is in the wrong. you are
blaming the victim.
[...]
>You don't know all the facts. Marty may be wholly correct, but the other
>side may also have some points of their own, which you don't know about.
i hope the other side will present their facts.
>If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither do you,
>then you are participating in a public humiliation which is extremely
>damaging to them.
then perhaps they should respond.
>I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
>states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
matter what the courts say. and perhaps by speaking out he will be
saving some other company from making an expensive mistake.
one could even argue that it is his moral duty to speak out
and warn us.
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
<5f9sga$j...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented
its
> >case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
>
> that's true. but it's not Marty Hirsch's fault that EUROCHESS
> hasn't presented its side.
Come on, it doesn't have to. This news group isn't the supreme court.
>
> >It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world,
and,
> >with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court
action,
> >and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to point to
> >these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
>
> if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
> his story on a newsgroup?
After a court judgement maybe, but right now it can only be Marty's
subjective view. And this sort of stuff is damaging.
Eurochess is not a participator of this news group, nor do Marty's
financial problems really have much to do with computer chess. Its his
business. If I were to post everybody who owes me money or turned into bad
debt it would run into pages and pages. *After* the case is fought, then
ok. But in the middle of it, no.
I could post you many figures in this industry who owe money, or had
companies that went down owing money, or who have behaved immorally over
debt - its an endemic problem to business and credit.
If an end user attacks a programmer, as they often do, for some alleged
business problem, then I'ld take the same view. Trial by newsgroup
humiliation is not on, unless and until all other channels are exhausted.
>
> >Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing
giving
> >$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
> >for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
> >slice of Marty's total business.
>
> perhaps he was too trusting. or perhaps the decision was made by
> someone else.
Sure he was. Its not sensible to be trusting in these situations. Better to
be clear from the beginning.
>
> [...]
> >> If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
> >> aggrieved then this whole episode damages us all
> >
> >Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
> >credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
>
> it damages us because it is unjust. it damages us because it
> means that Hirsch has to spend time dealing with legal hassles
> instead of working on improving his program. whether or not this is
> a new thing is irrelevant to whether it "damages us all".
I agree its unjust, if proven. Its a very bad situation as described. But
it doesn't really rank in the great scheme of things as a great disaster to
get worked up about. Its *very* nasty for Marty, but its not a moral issue
for the rest of mankind.
>
> [...]
> >Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
>
> cmon, this isn't a trial. it is a public discussion.
> and EUROCHESS is free to join in if they want.
On one side I agree with you. Everything is up for discussion. Openness is
good.
But maybe *after* clarification by the courts ... ?
>
> [...]
> >Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
> >company.
> >By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
> >advanced the credit in the first place.
>
> i have to disagree. from your above statements, i think it is
> impossible to predict 100% who will be honest. in the case at hand,
> perhaps it was bad judgment - i don't really know. nevertheless
> if Hirsch entered into a business agreement in good faith and the
> other party defaulted, then the other party is in the wrong. you are
> blaming the victim.
Of course in this case as described the other party is in the wrong.
But this sort of bad debt is so common that its necessary to prevent it at
source. No credit unless good reason.
If you were to ask the merchandising programmers about bad debt, you would
get a list as long as, well as long as a very long long thing.
>
> [...]
> >You don't know all the facts. Marty may be wholly correct, but the other
> >side may also have some points of their own, which you don't know about.
>
> i hope the other side will present their facts.
>
> >If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither do
you,
> >then you are participating in a public humiliation which is extremely
> >damaging to them.
>
> then perhaps they should respond.
This is not Jakarta. This is not the icca. We are not members of Eurochess.
They do not represent us. They can do what they want. They are not
accountable to us. Its a whole different game.
>
> >I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
> >states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
>
> i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
> speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
> that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
> he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
> as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
> matter what the courts say.
But but but. Suppose Eurochess is not so bad, what then ?
I'm asking for *time*, *wait*, maybe the story is different. You don't
know, nor do I.
Chris Whittington
wetboy
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
: <3317C1...@netcom.ca>...
: I think you should be a lot more careful.
: There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented its
: case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
: It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world, and,
: with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court action,
I could not disagree more. In absence of a court "gag" order, Marty is
certainly free to express his views, and anyone is free to express theirs
in response. Eurochess is certainly free to jump in and "set the record
straight" if it so desires. Even a court gag order does not foreclose
discussion by those not involved in the case.
< snip >
: Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
: credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
< snip >
: Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
: company.
: By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
: advanced the credit in the first place.
You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
activities of your own.
: If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither do you,
: then you are participating in a public humiliation which is extremely
: damaging to them.
How, exactly, do you know that he has no idea whether Eurochess has a
reasonable case? Also, again, Eurochess is certainly free to respond
if it believes it is being damaged.
: I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
: states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
The courts must judge according to the law, but people may judge according
to their wits.
-- Wetboy
Papakosmas
I test genius 5 with the position:
White: Ke8, Be5, Rg1, f7,e7,d5,g2,h4,c2,b3
Black: Ka1, Bb1, Rb2, a2,a3,d7,g4,h6
White mates in 5. The winning move is 1)Bh8
Genius5 can't solve the mate.
The Genius 3 solves the mate.
So have Genius5 a bug?
Lambros Papakosmas (rs9...@central.ntua.gr)
Don Fong
In article <01bc2696$a5a5fd00$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>--
>http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
>
>Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
><5f9sga$j...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
>> In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
>> Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented
>its
>> >case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
>>
>> that's true. but it's not Marty Hirsch's fault that EUROCHESS
>> hasn't presented its side.
>
>Come on, it doesn't have to. This news group isn't the supreme court.
exactly. this isn't the supreme court. we don't have the same
power or responsibilities or procedural restrictions. so i don't see
what's wrong with Marty Hirsch informally telling us his opinions.
[...]
>> if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
>> his story on a newsgroup?
>
>After a court judgement maybe, but right now it can only be Marty's
>subjective view. And this sort of stuff is damaging.
is it a "subjective" matter whether eurochess owes him $35,000?
i don't know what your european courts are like, but here in the US,
i have very little confidence that the courts serve justice. yes i do
feel that in many cases the public is able to make fairer judgments than
a judge.
i am not speaking against the rule of law, i am simply saying
that i see no ethical reason why someone should not be allowed to make
true statements in public. it would probably hurt Marty Hirsch more
than eurochess. if he loses the case, he could get in trouble. he
has staked his good name on his accusation. it may not be in his
own best interests for him to expose himself this way, but that doesn't
mean there is anything wrong with it either.
>Eurochess is not a participator of this news group, nor do Marty's
>financial problems really have much to do with computer chess.
i disagree. people in this forum often speculate about why
some program's release is delayed or butty, etc.
>Its his
>business. If I were to post everybody who owes me money or turned into bad
>debt it would run into pages and pages.
but how many of them stiffed you for 35 grand?
>*After* the case is fought, then ok. But in the middle of it, no.
the truth is the truth, regardless of who wins the court case.
again, Marty Hirsch has put his reputation on the line. whether
he is right or not, he HAS the right to post here.
>I could post you many figures in this industry who owe money, or had
>companies that went down owing money, or who have behaved immorally over
>debt - its an endemic problem to business and credit.
maybe you ought to. you might have saved Marty Hirsch an
expensive mistake.
>If an end user attacks a programmer, as they often do, for some alleged
>business problem, then I'ld take the same view. Trial by newsgroup
>humiliation is not on, unless and until all other channels are exhausted.
remember what you said: this is not the supreme court.
this is a discussion forum. Marty's article is relevant.
[...]
>I agree its unjust, if proven. Its a very bad situation as described. But
>it doesn't really rank in the great scheme of things as a great disaster to
>get worked up about. Its *very* nasty for Marty, but its not a moral issue
>for the rest of mankind.
uh, most of the things discussed in this forum are of less than
cosmic importance. that has never been a requirement for posting here.
>> [...]
>> >Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
>>
>> cmon, this isn't a trial. it is a public discussion.
>> and EUROCHESS is free to join in if they want.
>
>On one side I agree with you. Everything is up for discussion. Openness is
>good.
>
>But maybe *after* clarification by the courts ... ?
why wait? you seem to think "everyone" should be born knowing
not to trust. but obviously there are some people who don't know.
in the years that it may take to resolve the issue, should eurochess
be remain free to rip off more innocent people? i think Marty Hirsch
has done a public service by making his story public.
let me put it this way. if you found out that the headmaster
at your child's school was a child molester, would you wait until
the courts had decided the case before warning your friends?
[...]
>Of course in this case as described the other party is in the wrong.
>
>But this sort of bad debt is so common that its necessary to prevent it at
>source. No credit unless good reason.
>
>If you were to ask the merchandising programmers about bad debt, you would
>get a list as long as, well as long as a very long long thing.
again, i point out that your wait and see policy is only
helping the thieves.
[...]
>This is not Jakarta. This is not the icca. We are not members of Eurochess.
>They do not represent us. They can do what they want. They are not
>accountable to us. Its a whole different game.
we are consumers. they are not directly accountable to us, but
they fail to defend their public reputation, then they have only
themselves to blame.
[...]
>But but but. Suppose Eurochess is not so bad, what then ?
>
>I'm asking for *time*, *wait*, maybe the story is different. You don't
>know, nor do I.
as a reader of this forum, i will wait to hear both sides, before
forming my personal judgment. but that doesn't mean Marty Hirsch
should have to wait to warn people. it seems to me he is taking a
risk by doing speaking out. the safe thing to do would be keep quiet.
but if both sides did that, it'd be a very long time before the public
found out anything.
Ed Schroder
From: "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk>
> if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
> his story on a newsgroup?
: After a court judgement maybe, but right now it can only be Marty's
: subjective view. And this sort of stuff is damaging.
: Eurochess is not a participator of this news group, nor do Marty's
: financial problems really have much to do with computer chess. Its his
: business. If I were to post everybody who owes me money or turned into
: bad debt it would run into pages and pages. *After* the case is fought,
: then ok. But in the middle of it, no.
[ snip ]
: But but but. Suppose Eurochess is not so bad, what then ?
: I'm asking for *time*, *wait*, maybe the story is different. You
: don't know, nor do I.
: Chris Whittington
Chris I agree on what you are trying to say but rereading Marty's posting
I taste a need for help instead of accusing the other party.
Of course Marty had to explain something. Therefore I think his posting
will not damage his position in court.
What is important that he gets the help he asked for.
- Ed Schroder -
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
<5falqe$4...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
Ok, I give in.
Anybody can post whatever they want here, its a public discussion forum.
We just have to make sure we read with a level of intelligence before
condemning anyone.
And I wish Marty good luck in getting his money and trophy back.
Chris Whittington
>
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
wetboy <wet...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5fak26$k...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>...
> Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : --
> : http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
>
> : Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
> : <3317C1...@netcom.ca>...
>
> : I think you should be a lot more careful.
>
> : There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented
its
> : case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
>
> : It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world,
and,
> : with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court
action,
>
> I could not disagree more. In absence of a court "gag" order, Marty is
> certainly free to express his views, and anyone is free to express theirs
> in response. Eurochess is certainly free to jump in and "set the record
> straight" if it so desires. Even a court gag order does not foreclose
> discussion by those not involved in the case.
>
>
> < snip >
> : Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
> : credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
> < snip >
> : Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
> : company.
> : By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
> : advanced the credit in the first place.
>
> You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
> activities of your own.
Yuk.
What a nasty little man you are.
In your case there is little point in trying to defend oneself against
smears of the type you use by using moral arguments or appealing to your
better judgement. Clearly neither would make any impact on your sly little
mind.
So have a pragmatic argument instead:
I've been successfully in the software development and publishing business
for 16 years. In what is a relatively small world it is not possible to
survive for that length of time with a reputation for commercial trickery.
In the civilised western countries we have something called the law of
contract.
It means that if you make a deal you stick to it.
Its also helpful to define every part of a deal in the initial contract.
Leaving stuff on trust almost invariably creates problems later.
To deal with default there's a civil court legal system, ultimately backed
up with bailiffs and police.
Countries without this rule of law, usually end up with their own internal
debt enforcement mafia (Russia, Southern Italy, Drug problem areas in USA
inner cities).
In international trade it can be very difficult to enforce debt collection
on an immoral debtor. It simply concerns me that debtor trial by
humiliation on usenet runs the danger of turning usenet into a mafia-type
debt enforcement weapon.
Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one, and
don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
generated by this 'wetboy' person.
So, good luck Marty, in recovering your £35,000 and your trophy. I really
do hope you are successful.
Chris Whittington
mclane
"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> then perhaps they should respond.
>This is not Jakarta. This is not the icca. We are not members of Eurochess.
>They do not represent us. They can do what they want. They are not
>accountable to us. Its a whole different game.
As you have seen. Chris, the ICCA does also not count much about
Jakarta.
>>
>> >I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
>> >states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
>>
>> i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
>> speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
>> that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
>> he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
>> as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
>> matter what the courts say.
>But but but. Suppose Eurochess is not so bad, what then ?
What if my dog has an intestine problem and shits on the floor....
:-)
>I'm asking for *time*, *wait*, maybe the story is different. You don't
>know, nor do I.
>Chris Whittington
Nobody knows. But we all have eyes to see, ears to hear, and noses to
smell slime that is running over the floor and shit that is lying on
the carpet.
mclane
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
>In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented its
>>case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
> that's true. but it's not Marty Hirsch's fault that EUROCHESS
>hasn't presented its side.
Confirm.
>>It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world, and,
>>with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court action,
>>and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to point to
>>these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
> if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
>his story on a newsgroup?
I don't understand what chris wants to tell us here, but I don't have
to be always HIS opinon.
>>Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing giving
>>$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
>>for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
>>slice of Marty's total business.
> perhaps he was too trusting. or perhaps the decision was made by
>someone else.
I think Stamer met Marty at the aegon tournament. Stamer alway looks
very smart and fine, maybe Marty was granded by the outfit and the
slime...
>[...]
>>> If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
>>> aggrieved then this whole episode damages us all
>>
>>Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
>>credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
> it damages us because it is unjust. it damages us because it
>means that Hirsch has to spend time dealing with legal hassles
>instead of working on improving his program. whether or not this is
>a new thing is irrelevant to whether it "damages us all".
Right.
>[...]
>>Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
> cmon, this isn't a trial. it is a public discussion.
>and EUROCHESS is free to join in if they want.
Yes. Join it or leave it.
> i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
>speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
>that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
>he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
>as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
>matter what the courts say. and perhaps by speaking out he will be
>saving some other company from making an expensive mistake.
> one could even argue that it is his moral duty to speak out
>and warn us.
Brilliant. I thank you for your clear words, Don Fong.
Why don't you come to Den Haag this year ?! Then we could all meet ?!
mclane
"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...] snip
Sorry chris, but I don't want to listen to Eurochess ANSWER or
whatever.
>Chris Whittington
I do also not know how KK can always handle these difficult cases from
his far away point of view, not speaking any german and not reading
computerschach and spiele and all what happens here in germany, but I
would also not try to defend somebody, because KK attacks him.
Enrico
Papakosmas <rs9...@central.ntua.gr> schrieb im Beitrag
<3318D6...@central.ntua.gr>...
> I test genius 5 with the position:
> White: Ke8, Be5, Rg1, f7,e7,d5,g2,h4,c2,b3
> Black: Ka1, Bb1, Rb2, a2,a3,d7,g4,h6
> White mates in 5. The winning move is 1)Bh8
> Genius5 can't solve the mate.
> The Genius 3 solves the mate.
> So have Genius5 a bug?
ChessGenius 5 on my Pent.100 MHz and 24 MB Hash tables
shows immediately that white is vastly superiour to black:
after --------- 20sec : 1.f 8Q (+23)
after 10min 48sec : 1.f 8Q (Mate in 6)
after 12min 47sec : 1.Bh8 (Mate in 5)
Enrico
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article
<E6EL3...@news.prima.ruhr.de>...
> "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> then perhaps they should respond.
>
> >This is not Jakarta. This is not the icca. We are not members of
Eurochess.
> >They do not represent us. They can do what they want. They are not
> >accountable to us. Its a whole different game.
>
>
> As you have seen. Chris, the ICCA does also not count much about
> Jakarta.
>
>
> >>
> >> >I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know
wait
> >> >states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
> >>
> >> i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
> >> speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
> >> that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
> >> he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
> >> as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
> >> matter what the courts say.
>
> >But but but. Suppose Eurochess is not so bad, what then ?
>
> What if my dog has an intestine problem and shits on the floor....
> :-)
>
>
> >I'm asking for *time*, *wait*, maybe the story is different. You don't
> >know, nor do I.
>
> >Chris Whittington
>
> Nobody knows. But we all have eyes to see, ears to hear, and noses to
> smell slime that is running over the floor and shit that is lying on
> the carpet.
Ok, Ok. So you all think Eurochess is a bad guy. Ok. I'm not going to argue
about it.
But just one thing (in answer to Dong Fong (I think it was) who posed a
question about a sex offender coming to live next door):
We had a case of this in England last week:
A convicted paedophile was released after serving his jail sentence. He was
a serial offender, many offences. The police published a photograph of him
together with details of name, address and so on, including their
observation that he was still dangerous and likely to re-offend. Somehow
this photo + details got published in a local paper.
Next thing: a gang of 'concerned' locals identified this man living in
hostel in Manchester. They tracked him down and beat him up, very badly.
Unfortunately, they got the wrong guy. They picked on an old man with
mental problems who just happened to look like their paedophile.
Mob justice has a way of getting it wrong.
Thats one reason why, despite all the lawyer jokes, and jibes at judges, we
have a codified legal system. It helps to protect the innocent.
I am in favour of debate and clarification of issues on usenet, but not
trial by the mob.
I realise I'm in a minority of one. So I'll try and shut-up on this from
now on.
Chris Whittington
>
>
brucemo
Chris Whittington wrote:
> I realise I'm in a minority of one. So I'll try and shut-up on this from
> now on.
Not particularly. I agree with your posts.
I expect that this is a case where Eurochess really did rip off Marty
Hirsch. The case is in the courts, which means that if it is as clear-cut
as it seems, it will be resolved in favor of Marty. He may or may not get
100% satisfaction from the result, but that's how courts work.
If the court finds in favor of Marty, this kind of thread may be more in
line. If he doesn't get 100% satisfaction there, perhaps he can get some
more here.
But since it's being handled, why is there a need to get into a rage now?
I got the creeps when I saw KK's post, but I wasn't able to express it as
well as Chris did, so I refrained. That post had the sound of a call to
crusade, and that's dangerous -- more information is required before we
break out the pitch forks.
Everyone should consider themselves warned about Eurochess, though.
I didn't get Hirsch's post, my ISP has been having problems. If someone,
perhaps KK, so I don't get spammed, could mail it to me, I would appreciate
it.
bruce
Robert Hyatt
Papakosmas (rs9...@central.ntua.gr) wrote:
: I test genius 5 with the position:
: White: Ke8, Be5, Rg1, f7,e7,d5,g2,h4,c2,b3
: Black: Ka1, Bb1, Rb2, a2,a3,d7,g4,h6
: White mates in 5. The winning move is 1)Bh8
: Genius5 can't solve the mate.
: The Genius 3 solves the mate.
: So have Genius5 a bug?
Don't forget, finding a mate in 5 is neat. But it doesn't have a lot to do
with winning most games, which are decided way before a mating net is cast.
Maybe G3 is better at finding mates, while G5 plays better positionally, or
more actively, or ... you get the idea... There are many monster mate
finders around... but to reach that position you have to play well for many
moves first...
brucemo
Papakosmas wrote:
>
> I test genius 5 with the position:
> White: Ke8, Be5, Rg1, f7,e7,d5,g2,h4,c2,b3
> Black: Ka1, Bb1, Rb2, a2,a3,d7,g4,h6
> White mates in 5. The winning move is 1)Bh8
> Genius5 can't solve the mate.
> The Genius 3 solves the mate.
> So have Genius5 a bug?
> Lambros Papakosmas (rs9...@central.ntua.gr)
The following post contains assumptions about Genius, but I
think they are probably good assumptions.
Genius is a general-purpose chess program.
The main goal of a general-purpose chess program is to play
chess from the initial root position, and make good moves until
the opponent resigns.
The strength of a program like this is measured by how often it
succeeds in making the opponent resign.
The strength of a program like this is determined by how well a
program solves mates, only if the detection of particular mates
is apt to increase the frequency of opponent resignation.
This particular position is unlikely to come up in practical
play, therefore solution of it has litle to do with
program strength. Therefore, failure to solve it is not a bug.
If I could write my program so it fell flat in every case like
this, in exchange for five Elo points of increased strength in
real games, I would do it instantly.
I think though that problems like this might point to the need
for a "mate solving" mode.
bruce
Don Fong
In article <01bc26e8$d37a3140$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
i fully agree.
>And I wish Marty good luck in getting his money and trophy back.
i agree with this too.
Papakosmas
James Garner wrote:
>
> Enrico (Enr...@berlin.snafu.de) wrote:
>
> : after --------- 20sec : 1.f 8Q (+23)
> : after 10min 48sec : 1.f 8Q (Mate in 6)
>
> with 64MB RAM.
In my computer (Cyrix P150+, 32MB)
Rebel decade, in mate 5 level, founds the mate in 47 sec.
Lambros Papakosmas
Papakosmas
Enrico wrote:
>
> Papakosmas <rs9...@central.ntua.gr> schrieb im Beitrag
> <3318D6...@central.ntua.gr>...
> > White: Ke8, Be5, Rg1, f7,e7,d5,g2,h4,c2,b3
> > Black: Ka1, Bb1, Rb2, a2,a3,d7,g4,h6
> > White mates in 5. The winning move is 1)Bh8
> > Genius5 can't solve the mate.
> > The Genius 3 solves the mate.
> > So have Genius5 a bug?
>
> shows immediately that white is vastly superiour to black:
>
> after 10min 48sec : 1.f 8Q (Mate in 6)
>
> Enrico
that no mate in 5 was found.
Herbert Groot Jebbink
On Sun, 02 Mar 1997, <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I am in favour of debate and clarification of issues on usenet, but not
>trial by the mob.
>
>I realise I'm in a minority of one.
No, you are not.
- hgj
---
The Trans-Siberian Railroad Page, http://www.xs4all.nl/~hgj/
wetboy
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > < snip >
: > : Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
: > : credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
: > < snip >
: > : Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
: > : company.
: > : By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
: > : advanced the credit in the first place.
: >
: > You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
: > activities of your own.
: Yuk.
: What a nasty little man you are.
: In your case there is little point in trying to defend oneself against
: smears of the type you use by using moral arguments or appealing to your
: better judgement. Clearly neither would make any impact on your sly little
: mind.
< snip >
Please note that I did not accuse you of anything. What prompted my
remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy (If Marty's
accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming the victim,
and I was suspicious as to what motive anyone would have for doing that.
-- Wetboy
Komputer Korner
mclane wrote:
>
snipped
> Yes. Join it or leave it.
>
> >speaking out while a legal action is pending. but common sense says
> >that the truth is the truth. if what he says is true, then i think
> >he should be thanked for taking that risk to inform the public.
> >as a consumer, i don't want to do business with unethical firms no
> >saving some other company from making an expensive mistake.
> > one could even argue that it is his moral duty to speak out
> >and warn us.
>
> Brilliant. I thank you for your clear words, Don Fong.
> Why don't you come to Den Haag this year ?! Then we could all meet ?!
What is the full name of the owner of EuroChess?
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
> --
snipped
> In international trade it can be very difficult to enforce debt collection
> on an immoral debtor. It simply concerns me that debtor trial by
> humiliation on usenet runs the danger of turning usenet into a mafia-type
> debt enforcement weapon.
>
> Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one, and
> don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
> generated by this 'wetboy' person.
>
> So, good luck Marty, in recovering your £35,000 and your trophy. I really
> do hope you are successful.
>
> Chris Whittington
Seeing that you have agreed that it is very difficult to enforce
international debts that are not huge amounts of money, just how
do you propose to conduct international business when small amounts
of money are involved? No credit terms and tough luck to anybody that
doesn't follow this principal. But that would mean that the
purchaser would be the only ones that get ripped off. What would
happen when buyers had always to pay money before getting the product
and they never did get it? Where would the buyer obtain justice.
If you again answer don't pay until receiving product, the seller will
respond, ah but Mr. Whittington, Sir, you said I shouldn't extend
credit. Therfore we are at a standstill. No business gets conducted
because everybody is afraid of getting ripped off with no recourse.
Komputer Korner
brucemo wrote:
>snipped
>
> If I could write my program so it fell flat in every case like
> this, in exchange for five Elo points of increased strength in
> real games, I would do it instantly.
>
> I think though that problems like this might point to the need
> for a "mate solving" mode.
>
> bruce
There is a bug. The test position was carried out in mate mode and
the program said no mate. Mate modes are not good for short
term thinking but if you leave it long enough, the mate will be found.
However, in this case a bug caused the program to report no mate
when there actually was a mate.
brucemo
Komputer Korner wrote:
> Seeing that you have agreed that it is very difficult to enforce
> international debts that are not huge amounts of money, just how
> do you propose to conduct international business when small amounts
> of money are involved? No credit terms and tough luck to anybody that
> doesn't follow this principal. But that would mean that the
> purchaser would be the only ones that get ripped off. What would
> happen when buyers had always to pay money before getting the product
> and they never did get it? Where would the buyer obtain justice.
> If you again answer don't pay until receiving product, the seller will
> respond, ah but Mr. Whittington, Sir, you said I shouldn't extend
> credit. Therfore we are at a standstill. No business gets conducted
> because everybody is afraid of getting ripped off with no recourse.
And does your proposed solution involve one-side trials in newsgroups?
bruce
wetboy
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > < snip >
: > : Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
: > : credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
: > < snip >
: > : Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
: > : company.
: > : By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
: > : advanced the credit in the first place.
: >
: > You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
: > activities of your own.
: Yuk.
: What a nasty little man you are.
: In your case there is little point in trying to defend oneself against
: smears of the type you use by using moral arguments or appealing to your
: better judgement. Clearly neither would make any impact on your sly little
: mind.
< snip >
: Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one, and
: don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
: generated by this 'wetboy' person.
Please note that I did not accuse you of anything. What prompted my
remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy (If Marty's
accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming the victim,
and I was speculating as to what motive anyone would have for doing that.
-- Wetboy
Mark Rawlings
"Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>--
>http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
>Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
><3317C1...@netcom.ca>...
>I think you should be a lot more careful.
>There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not presented its
>case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
>It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small world, and,
>with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court action,
>and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to point to
>these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
>Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing giving
>$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
>for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
>slice of Marty's total business.
>I presume that part of the problem is that there are limited numbers of
>re-sellers with any clout in Germany. Ossi deals with Genius. Schroeder
>sells direct, Niggeman and Gambit stock everything, so if Marty wants to
>get a look in he has to start dealing on unfavourable terms with a less
>well known distributor, who presumably refuses to stock his product unless
>its on full credit, probably sale or return as well.
>Its a well known law to apply to foreign distributors: they pay every
>invoice except the last one. And recovery by legal action in a foreign
>country is *very* difficult.
>Make them pay up front. By credit card if necessary.
>Professional distributors will always kill amateur businessmen. They start
>off nice and charming, get the goods on credit, and then they fall into
>various categories:
>1. Don't pay in the credit period. this applies to all of them
>2. Only pay after you chase the debt yourself by letter
>3. Only pay when you chase by telephone
>4. Only pay when they want more product
>5. Only pay when you threaten them with legal action
>6. Only pay when they get the solicitors letter
>7. Only pay just before the court case
>8. Never pay because you gave up chasing them
>Its been going on since time immemorial.
>For one-man band and smallish distributors you should think very carefully
>before allowing any credit. Even large well established ones can go bust on
>you.
>> Folks, I have to be careful what I say, but Marty's story about
>> EUROCHESS
>> cheating him out of $35,000 U.S. is backed up by at least 2 others. The
>> whole thing is before the courts in Germany but the bottom line is that
>> because it is too large an amount for small claims court, even if Marty
>> wins the case, after legal fees how much will he benefit? You have all
>> read about Marty's story and it basically boiled down to him providing
>> M-Chess 5 product to EUROCHESS and not getting paid for it. To top it
>> all
>> off, Eurochess then bottomed out its price on M-Chess 5 to hurt sales of
>> M-Chess 6. If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
>> aggrieved
>> then this whole episode damages us all
>Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
>credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
Of course it damages us all. It keeps prices high. Do you think
Marty is going to be able to run a $99 special on MChess, now that he
is out $35k?
Mark
>> and the silence about this is
>> deafening on this newsgroup.
>Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
>> There is an increasing amount of criminal
>> business behaviour around the world and a lot of it is caused by the
>> fact
>Mostly its caused by immoral people.
>Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
>company.
>By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
>advanced the credit in the first place.
>> that court systems are are so tied up that it is almost useless to
>> try to recover money if the amount is over the small claims limit in
>> that country. I can't legally call for a boycott of EUROCHESS,
>You can call for anything you want. But it'ld be pretty damn stupid to do
>so.
>> but other
>> commercial programmers should definitely think about the consequences of
>> this whole episode. Silence only makes matters worse. What do you think
>> fellow komputers?
>You don't know all the facts. Marty may be wholly correct, but the other
>side may also have some points of their own, which you don't know about.
>If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither do you,
>then you are participating in a public humiliation which is extremely
>damaging to them.
>I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know wait
>states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
>Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
wetboy <wet...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5fd4gt$f...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>...
> Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : > < snip >
> : > : Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing
goods on
> : > : credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
> : > < snip >
> : > : Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the
creditor
> : > : company.
> : > : By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't
have
> : > : advanced the credit in the first place.
> : >
> : > You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
> : > activities of your own.
>
>
> : Yuk.
> : What a nasty little man you are.
>
> : In your case there is little point in trying to defend oneself against
> : smears of the type you use by using moral arguments or appealing to
your
> : better judgement. Clearly neither would make any impact on your sly
little
> : mind.
>
> < snip >
>
> : Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one,
and
> : don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
> : generated by this 'wetboy' person.
>
> Please note that I did not accuse you of anything. What prompted my
> remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy (If Marty's
> accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming the victim,
> and I was speculating as to what motive anyone would have for doing that.
>
> -- Wetboy
>
No, this won't do.
Here's what you said:
> : >
> : > You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
> : > activities of your own.
>
The qualifying words in the sentence are "You sound like you might be
trying "
and apply to the verb "to justify".
"similarly sleazy activities of your own" is an unqualified assertion on
your part.
In other words you are stating, without any knowledge of me at all, that I
engage in 'sleazy activities' similar to Eurochess.
Your attempt at re-phrasing the assertion, and re-directing it is
disingenious to say the least.
Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<331A2A...@netcom.ca>...
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
> > --
> snipped
>
> > In international trade it can be very difficult to enforce debt
collection
> > on an immoral debtor. It simply concerns me that debtor trial by
> > humiliation on usenet runs the danger of turning usenet into a
mafia-type
> > debt enforcement weapon.
> >
> > Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one,
and
> > don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
> > generated by this 'wetboy' person.
> >
> > So, good luck Marty, in recovering your Ł35,000 and your trophy. I
really
> > do hope you are successful.
> >
> > Chris Whittington
>
> Seeing that you have agreed that it is very difficult to enforce
> international debts that are not huge amounts of money,
The amount of money is not that relevant. Its the collection process that
is difficult.
I remember a case where I gave a French lawyer 6000 FF (thats $800 or so)
in advance to pursue a French debt. The lawyer pocketed the money and did
zilch. Unbelievable, but then how do you chase the lawyer for the 6000 FF ?
> just how
> do you propose to conduct international business when small amounts
> of money are involved?
The easy way is by credit card.
Safeguards:
1. Supplier fails to ship goods. Credit card company can't debit your
account.
2. You want credit, fine, the credit card company gives it to you.
> No credit terms and tough luck to anybody that
> doesn't follow this principal. But that would mean that the
> purchaser would be the only ones that get ripped off. What would
> happen when buyers had always to pay money before getting the product
> and they never did get it? Where would the buyer obtain justice.
Pay by credit card. Its virtually foolproof for the buyer.
> If you again answer don't pay until receiving product, the seller will
> respond, ah but Mr. Whittington, Sir, you said I shouldn't extend
> credit. Therfore we are at a standstill.
Not with credit cards, we're not.
> No business gets conducted
> because everybody is afraid of getting ripped off with no recourse.
But business does get conducted.
Credit does get extended.
Large companies.
Companies established for a long time.
Companies with good credit ratings.
Companies where trust has been established.
wetboy
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
: > : Ok, I'm stopping joining in this argument. I'm in a minority of one,
: and
: > : don't really see the need to expose myself to the sort of slanders
: > : generated by this 'wetboy' person.
: >
: > Please note that I did not accuse you of anything. What prompted my
: > remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy (If Marty's
: > accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming the victim,
: > and I was speculating as to what motive anyone would have for doing that.
: >
: > -- Wetboy
: >
: No, this won't do.
: Here's what you said:
: > : >
: > : > You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
: > : > activities of your own.
: >
: The qualifying words in the sentence are "You sound like you might be
: trying "
: and apply to the verb "to justify".
: "similarly sleazy activities of your own" is an unqualified assertion on
: your part.
: In other words you are stating, without any knowledge of me at all, that I
: engage in 'sleazy activities' similar to Eurochess.
: Your attempt at re-phrasing the assertion, and re-directing it is
: disingenious to say the least.
You don't seem to understand the concept of the subjunctive. I did
not accuse you of anything, but I obviously can't stop you from
reading into it what you wish. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't
put it on.
On the other hand, while I haven't accused you of anything, you have
accused me of being "nasty", "sly", and "little".
Please note that I did not rephrase my assertion at all. Nor did
I attempt to, but I will state again the thought that occasioned it.
What prompted my remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy
(If Marty's accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming
the victim, and I was suspicious as to what motive anyone would have
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
wetboy <wet...@shore.net> wrote in article
<5ff2i7$9...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>...
Aah, I see now. If I say lets not lynch this alleged murderer just yet then
I'm a murderer too ?
>
> On the other hand, while I haven't accused you of anything, you have
> accused me of being "nasty", "sly", and "little".
I was both angry and not amused.
>
> Please note that I did not rephrase my assertion at all. Nor did
> I attempt to, but I will state again the thought that occasioned it.
> What prompted my remark is that you appear to be excusing the sleazy
> (If Marty's accusations are true) behavior of Eurochess and blaming
> the victim, and I was suspicious as to what motive anyone would have
> for doing that.
At no point did I excuse 'the sleazy behaviour of Eurochess'.
If you read you'll see that my motivation is/was concern was over the issue
of trial by newsgroup and mob justice *before* all facts were known.
Ok, no further point to this thread. You've stated your position very
clearly, I've stated mine.
Chris Whittington
>
> -- Wetboy
>
brucemo
James Garner wrote:
>
> brucemo (bru...@nwlink.com) wrote:
>
> : This particular position is unlikely to come up in practical
> : play, therefore solution of it has litle to do with
>
> However, since we can reasonably assume that most of the other
> major chess programs were not written from the ground up to solve this
> problem, and, unless you conjecture that an increased ability to solve
> this problem is a deterrant to being able to play good chess, one must
> concluide that if most of the other chess programs, also written to play
> good chess, the fact that Genius 5 takes much longer to solve it may very
> well have general implications.
Not necessarily. It could imply this, it could imply nothing, or it could
imply the opposite.
I don't know much about Genius, so I'll refer to a hypothetical program
instead. Perhaps this hypothetical program doesn't do any mate extensions
if the position is already won. If you are up a queen, why add more nodes
to the tree by trying to find that you also have a forced mate?
Wouldn't this make a program stronger, yet also harm solution times for
stuff like this?
bruce
brucemo
wetboy wrote:
> You don't seem to understand the concept of the subjunctive. I did
> not accuse you of anything, but I obviously can't stop you from
> reading into it what you wish. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't
> put it on.
Oh come on.
"You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
activities of your own."
You can't write something like that and expect your target to ignore
it because you said "you sound like you might be" rather than
"you are".
If I said to you, "You sound like you might be an idiot", wouldn't
you get offended?
bruce
Komputer Korner
brucemo wrote:
>
snipped
>
> I don't know much about Genius, so I'll refer to a hypothetical program
> instead. Perhaps this hypothetical program doesn't do any mate extensions
> if the position is already won. If you are up a queen, why add more nodes
> to the tree by trying to find that you also have a forced mate?
>
> Wouldn't this make a program stronger, yet also harm solution times for
> stuff like this?
>
> bruce
In this particular case of Genius 5, it is a definite bug caused
by the necessity of underpromotions to achieve the mate in 5. There
are 3 possible responses to 1.Bh8 and none of them allow black to
escape a mate in 5, but each one requires a different underpromotion
in order to achieve the mate in 5. The program only finds the mate
in 4 after it itself underpromotes. Therefore it knows how to
underpromote to achieve mate but doesn't know how to report that fact
beforehand in its mate finder. I haven't let the program try this
problem on normal time controls, but other readers might like to. It
will
take a while to get up to 10 ply full width.
Komputer Korner
Komputer Korner wrote:
>
>
> In this particular case of Genius 5, it is a definite bug caused
> by the necessity of underpromotions to achieve the mate in 5. There
> are 3 possible responses to 1.Bh8 and none of them allow black to
> escape a mate in 5, but each one requires a different underpromotion
> in order to achieve the mate in 5. The program only finds the mate
> in 4 after it itself underpromotes. Therefore it knows how to
> underpromote to achieve mate but doesn't know how to report that fact
> beforehand in its mate finder. I haven't let the program try this
> problem on normal time controls, but other readers might like to. It
> will
> take a while to get up to 10 ply full width.
> --
> Komputer Korner
>
> The inkompetent komputer.
Just after I sent the above post, Genius 5 stopped calculating in
infinite mode and showed a mate in 6 with a promotion to a Queen.
Therefore I have to conclude that it cannot find underpromotion mates
in its selective search except when the next move is the
underpromotion.
Komputer Korner
Chris Whittington wrote:
>
snipped
>
> Not with credit cards, we're not.
>
> > No business gets conducted
> > because everybody is afraid of getting ripped off with no recourse.
>
> But business does get conducted.
>
> Credit does get extended.
>
> Large companies.
> Companies established for a long time.
> Companies with good credit ratings.
> Companies where trust has been established.
>
> Chris Whittington
>
>
> > Komputer Korner
> >
> > The inkompetent komputer.
> >
The credit card solution is not perfect. All the seller has to do
is prove that there was a box sent to the customer. The box may have
been an empty one, but the seller will still be able to receive the
money from the credit card company. This won't work in the long run
because of all the complaints to the credit card companies but sure
does work in the short run or on a 1 time basis. You are right. There
is no substitute for honest dealers. Ed Schroder has an extensive list
of world wide dealers that he recommends on his web site.
Brandon W. Beasley
Truth is an absolute defense, but one who is involved in litigation
should always be extra cautious of what they choose to say in public for
words may be construed unfavorably as admissions. If you're unconcerned
about compromising your case, and truth is on your side, have at it.
Don Fong wrote:
In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not
presented its
>case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
that's true. but it's not Marty Hirsch's fault that EUROCHESS
hasn't presented its side.
>It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small
world, and,
>with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this only by court
action,
>and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation. Eurochess only has to
point to
>these postings to destroy much of Marty's case in court.
if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
his story on a newsgroup?
>Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he
doing giving
>$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents
getting on
>for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very
large
>slice of Marty's total business.
perhaps he was too trusting. or perhaps the decision was made
by
someone else.
[...]
>> If the courts subsequently prove that Marty has been
>> aggrieved then this whole episode damages us all
>
>Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing
goods on
>credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
it damages us because it is unjust. it damages us because it
means that Hirsch has to spend time dealing with legal hassles
instead of working on improving his program. whether or not this is
a new thing is irrelevant to whether it "damages us all".
[...]
>Arguably trial by newgroup in bad debt cases is not appropriate.
cmon, this isn't a trial. it is a public discussion.
and EUROCHESS is free to join in if they want.
[...]
>Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the
creditor
>company.
>By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't
have
>advanced the credit in the first place.
i have to disagree. from your above statements, i think it is
impossible to predict 100% who will be honest. in the case at hand,
perhaps it was bad judgment - i don't really know. nevertheless
if Hirsch entered into a business agreement in good faith and the
other party defaulted, then the other party is in the wrong. you
are
blaming the victim.
[...]
>You don't know all the facts. Marty may be wholly correct, but the
other
>side may also have some points of their own, which you don't know
about.
i hope the other side will present their facts.
>If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither
do you,
>then you are participating in a public humiliation which is
extremely
>damaging to them.
then perhaps they should respond.
>I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know
wait
>states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
i'm not a lawyer. perhaps there is some risk in Marty Hirsch's
Anders Thulin
In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Its a well known law to apply to foreign distributors: they pay every
>invoice except the last one. And recovery by legal action in a foreign
>country is *very* difficult.
Not at all. Just leave the invoice to a collecting agency in that
country. There used to be one called 'Justitia' or something similar
with offices in many European countries -- it's probably still around.
If a company fails to pay it will usually mean a blot in their local
credit history, which can be extremely damaging to them.
--
Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Engineering AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<331B74...@netcom.ca>...
> Chris Whittington wrote:
> >
> snipped
> >
> > Not with credit cards, we're not.
> >
> > > No business gets conducted
> > > because everybody is afraid of getting ripped off with no recourse.
> >
> > But business does get conducted.
> >
> > Credit does get extended.
> >
> > Large companies.
> > Companies established for a long time.
> > Companies with good credit ratings.
> > Companies where trust has been established.
> >
> > Chris Whittington
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Komputer Korner
> > >
> > > The inkompetent komputer.
> > >
>
> The credit card solution is not perfect. All the seller has to do
> is prove that there was a box sent to the customer.
Oh god, Komputer Korner. Look most business is honest and reasonable. Most
customers are honest and reasonable.
Some business will no doubt try and behave immorally.
Likewise some customers.
If you want to suggest that we should all cease buying and selling things
because of some rogues, then ok, just buy at your corner shop.
> The box may have
> been an empty one, but the seller will still be able to receive the
> money from the credit card company.
The seller would have to be able to *prove* delivery, not *sending*.
Although easiest woudl just be to replace the allegedly missing contents.
I think that resellers have more of a problem here. If csutomer claims that
there is no disc in the box, a reseller who paid $50 for a product is faced
with breaking another $50 product to send another disc. Although in
practice, he'll do this and send the broken package back to his source for
credit.
For a primary manufacturor, sending another disc is not much of a problem,
the raw cost is $1
> This won't work in the long run
> because of all the complaints to the credit card companies but sure
> does work in the short run or on a 1 time basis. You are right. There
> is no substitute for honest dealers.
There's no substitute for honesty in general.
> Ed Schroder has an extensive list
> of world wide dealers that he recommends on his web site.
Korner, do you have no discriminating power at all ?
On the one side you whinge on about credit card problems and dishonest
people.
Then suddenly the archangel gabriel in the form of ed is at hand, with an
'honest' dealer list. Eurochess is on Ed's list. Ed's list is a list of
companies that, at one time or another, he has sold products to. this
doesn't make them any more or any less 'honest' than any other dealers.
Korner, capitalism functions by taking something, value a, adding your own
value b to it, and selling it for c. where c > a+b. If c < a+b then you're
wasting your own time and the world's resources.
This is the only way that any trade can operate in anything other than the
extreme short term.
Moral: trade with established business that has some sort of reasonable
reputation. It is very unlikely that these people with screw you.
Preferably avoid borrowing and lending (otherwise known as credit).
Rolf Czedzak
mclane wrote: <E6EL3...@news.prima.ruhr.de>
m> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
m>
m> >In article <01bc265c$1e728680$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
m> >Chris Whittington <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
m> >>It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small
m> >>world, and, with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this
m> >>only by court action, and not by simultaneous rgcc humiliation.
m> >>Eurochess only has to point to these postings to destroy much of
m> >>Marty's case in court.
m>
m> > if what Hirsch said is true, then what is wrong with him telling
m> >his story on a newsgroup?
m> I don't understand what chris wants to tell us here, but I don't have
m> to be always HIS opinon.
Chris tried to explain that written law and formalized law/court system
is a civilisatory advance to "Gesundes Volksempfinden" aka mob "justice".
I tend to think that Marty is ok to explain his case here and now, cause
he's taking the risk. All of the other well informed people should keep
their mouthes shut.
Just my .02 euros.
Rolf C
Rolf Czedzak
mclane wrote: <E6EL3...@news.prima.ruhr.de>
m> "Chris Whittington" <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
m>
m> [...] snip
m>
m> Sorry chris, but I don't want to listen to Eurochess ANSWER or
m> whatever.
Thank You for Your thoughtful comment. I coukdn't make my position
any clearer than You did. :-(
Rolf C
Robert Hyatt
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
: <331B83...@netcom.ca>...
: > Komputer Korner wrote:
: > >
: >
: > >
: > > In this particular case of Genius 5, it is a definite bug caused
: > > by the necessity of underpromotions to achieve the mate in 5. There
: > > are 3 possible responses to 1.Bh8 and none of them allow black to
: > > escape a mate in 5, but each one requires a different underpromotion
: > > in order to achieve the mate in 5. The program only finds the mate
: > > in 4 after it itself underpromotes. Therefore it knows how to
: > > underpromote to achieve mate but doesn't know how to report that fact
: > > beforehand in its mate finder. I haven't let the program try this
: > > problem on normal time controls, but other readers might like to. It
: > > will
: > > take a while to get up to 10 ply full width.
: > > --
: > > Komputer Korner
: > >
: > > The inkompetent komputer.
: >
: > Just after I sent the above post, Genius 5 stopped calculating in
: > infinite mode and showed a mate in 6 with a promotion to a Queen.
: > Therefore I have to conclude that it cannot find underpromotion mates
: > in its selective search except when the next move is the
: > underpromotion.
: Interesting. When CSTal's move generator comes across a promotion move, it
: saves four copies of the move, with a flag set in each one to say =Q, =R,
: =B, =N. So
: all the promo moves will get searched.
: Well that's in the normal search.
: In selection areas, or extension areas, the candidate move generator
: doesn't bother with =R, =B, =N
: So CSTal will find underpromotions so long as the underpromotion is
: reasonably near to the base of the tree. 'Reasonably near' gets deeper and
: deeper with each iteration.
: You may find, that for practical play, many programs behave like this .....
: ?
Yes. Two options of mine:
1. Crafty. Generates all promotions so long as depth > 0 (ie at non
capture-search nodes only). Pretty normal there, and sounds like you,
although I don't do any "selectiveness" so if crafty does an 11 ply
search, all promotions are generated for those 11 plies. In the Qsearch,
crafty only generates =Q. Remember, also, that I don't do checks in the
qsearch, nor even notice I'm in check there, so at depth <= 0, I won't
ever see a mate of any kind. It is (on occasion) frightening to see this:
2.553 Qxh4 Nc3 Bg4 Bd2 ... ... ... ... Qxa1 Qxg7#
If you count those up, you notice that crafty is +2.5, but the mate is
on the even ply... :) Fortunately, in *every case* (so far) it had a
way out at the end and still won the material without giving up what
was on g7 and getting mated at the same time. Also, obviously, there are
positions where this is going to fall flat...
2. Cray Blitz. Different animal. Generated call promotions for N plies,
where N=iteration depth. Then it enters a selective search of (typically)
4 plies, where it would generate only =Q and =N promotions as well as other
selectively "appealing" moves. Beyond that, in the capture search, since
CB does notice checks and checkmate during the capture search, it still
will generate =Q and =N if they are checks. Note also that in the qsearch,
so long as one side has never had the opportunity to stand pat, CB will make
that side do a full-width search if in check, even though this is called the
"quiescence search". Once a side has the opportunity to stand pat or play
a capture, this stuff is turned off, since a forced mate can't be found...
Harry Nelson insisted on the =N promotion case since that is the most
common underpromotion in mating problems, which was his lost love in
life I believe. =R and =B are only used when stalemate is an issue
and we ignored 'em in the fringe search...
Rolf Czedzak
wetboy wrote: <5fak26$k...@fridge-nf0.shore.net>
w> Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
w>
w> : --
w> : http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
w>
w> : Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
w> : <3317C1...@netcom.ca>...
w>
w> : I think you should be a lot more careful.
w>
w> : There are two sides to any case, and the other side has not
w> presented its : case to rgcc, nor does it have to.
w>
w> : It is very easy to destroy reputations in this relatively small
w> world, and, : with all respect to Marty, he should be pursuing this
w> only by court action,
w>
w> I could not disagree more. In absence of a court "gag" order, Marty
w> is certainly free to express his views, and anyone is free to express
w> theirs in response. Eurochess is certainly free to jump in and "set
w> the record straight" if it so desires. Even a court gag order does
w> not foreclose discussion by those not involved in the case.
w>
w>
w> < snip >
w> : Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods
w> on : credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
w> < snip >
w> : Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the
w> creditor : company.
w> : By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't
w> have : advanced the credit in the first place.
w>
w> You sound like you might be trying to justify similarly sleazy
w> activities of your own.
w>
w>
w> : If Eurochess has a reasonable case, and I have no idea, and neither
w> do you, : then you are participating in a public humiliation which is
w> extremely : damaging to them.
w>
w> How, exactly, do you know that he has no idea whether Eurochess has a
w> reasonable case? Also, again, Eurochess is certainly free to respond
w> if it believes it is being damaged.
w>
w>
w> : I'ld make a retraction right now if I were you, and *wait*. We know
w> wait : states are not part of your hardware - maybe they should be.
w>
w> The courts must judge according to the law, but people may judge
w> according to their wits.
No reason to tell history/social life lessons to someone who hasn't already
learned to stand for his/her/its words with his/her/its name.
Thank You for Your -well, in absence of a better word, let me call it an:
opinion.
w> -- Wetboy
Rolf C
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
Chris Whittington
wetboy
Chris Whittington (chr...@demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > wetboy <wet...@shore.net> wrote in article
: > You don't seem to understand the concept of the subjunctive. I did
: > not accuse you of anything, but I obviously can't stop you from
: > reading into it what you wish. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't
: > put it on.
: Aah, I see now. If I say lets not lynch this alleged murderer just yet
: then I'm a murderer too ?
Why do you keep insisting on twisting my words against yourself?
: >
: > On the other hand, while I haven't accused you of anything, you have
: > accused me of being "nasty", "sly", and "little".
: I was both angry and not amused.
Do you always react out of anger in this way?
: At no point did I excuse 'the sleazy behaviour of Eurochess'.
I have two points about this:
First, I hope you did not intend to be quoting me here because I
had "If Marty's accusations are true" in parentheses between
'sleazy' and 'behavior'.
Second, here are some quotes from your initial post:
< beginning of quotes >
Again, and Marty is not going to thank me for this, what is he doing
giving
$35,000 of credit to a european distributor ? This represents getting on
for 500-1000 units of product, and probably also represents a very large
slice of Marty's total business.
< snip >
Why does it damage us all ? There's nothing new with providing goods on
credit and then not getting paid for them. Happens all the time.
< snip >
Bad debt cases very often arise through bad management by the creditor
company.
By definition, if a debt becomes bad, then the creditor shouldn't have
advanced the credit in the first place.
< end of quotes >
It sure sounds like you are excusing the alleged wrongdoer here and
blaming the victim to me. And I remain suspicious as to why anyone
would do that.
This will be my last post in this thread, as they have obviously
strayed from the subject of chess; nor will I read any more posts in
this thread. So you are free to say whatever you wish behind
my back, Chris. Go ahead, make your day.
-- Wetboy
Komputer Korner
Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
snipped
snipped
> 2. Cray Blitz. Different animal. Generated call promotions for N plies,
> where N=iteration depth. Then it enters a selective search of (typically)
> 4 plies, where it would generate only =Q and =N promotions as well as other
> selectively "appealing" moves. Beyond that, in the capture search, since
> CB does notice checks and checkmate during the capture search, it still
> will generate =Q and =N if they are checks. Note also that in the qsearch,
> so long as one side has never had the opportunity to stand pat, CB will make
> that side do a full-width search if in check, even though this is called the
> "quiescence search". Once a side has the opportunity to stand pat or play
> a capture, this stuff is turned off, since a forced mate can't be found...
>
> Harry Nelson insisted on the =N promotion case since that is the most
> common underpromotion in mating problems, which was his lost love in
> life I believe. =R and =B are only used when stalemate is an issue
> and we ignored 'em in the fringe search...
All this is very fine, logical and good, but the above should not happen
when in special MATE mode, therefore it is a bug.
brucemo
Komputer Korner wrote:
> All this is very fine, logical and good, but the above should not happen
> when in special MATE mode, therefore it is a bug.
Yes, I wouldn't have gone on about it not being a bug if I'd known it was
"mate mode".
By the way, a mate in 5 is 9 plies, not 10.
bruce
Tom C. Kerrigan
Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> In this particular case of Genius 5, it is a definite bug caused
> by the necessity of underpromotions to achieve the mate in 5. There
> are 3 possible responses to 1.Bh8 and none of them allow black to
> escape a mate in 5, but each one requires a different underpromotion
> in order to achieve the mate in 5. The program only finds the mate
> in 4 after it itself underpromotes. Therefore it knows how to
> underpromote to achieve mate but doesn't know how to report that fact
> beforehand in its mate finder. I haven't let the program try this
"knows how to underpromote to achieve mate"? "but doesn't know how to
report that fact beforehand in its mate finder"?
You have some really weird ideas about how a chess program works.
I suggest you write one, and *then* post about how they work.
Cheers,
Tom
Komputer Korner
I am only reporting what I and many others have seen with Genius 5.
If you had the program you would know what we are talking about.
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Tom C. Kerrigan <kerr...@merlin.pn.org> wrote in article
<5fja28$5...@merlin.pn.org>...
> Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
> > In this particular case of Genius 5, it is a definite bug caused
> > by the necessity of underpromotions to achieve the mate in 5. There
> > are 3 possible responses to 1.Bh8 and none of them allow black to
> > escape a mate in 5, but each one requires a different underpromotion
> > in order to achieve the mate in 5. The program only finds the mate
> > in 4 after it itself underpromotes. Therefore it knows how to
> > underpromote to achieve mate but doesn't know how to report that fact
> > beforehand in its mate finder. I haven't let the program try this
>
> "knows how to underpromote to achieve mate"? "but doesn't know how to
> report that fact beforehand in its mate finder"?
>
> You have some really weird ideas about how a chess program works.
You'll just have to get used to the stream of Komputer Konkioukeness.
Often its a lot of big words strung together. They look good, they sound
good, but.
There is some sort of sense in there somehow, but you need to know how to
find it.
Korner is saying (I think) that Genius5 will find an underpromotion mate if
the underpromotion is the first move, but not otherwise. He says that this
is a bug.
>
> I suggest you write one, and *then* post about how they work.
No, no, no.
This is elitist crap. It is permitted to post what you want, when you want,
anyhow you want.
Chris Whittington
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
Andreas De Troy
The title says it all [:-)]... yet if someone is willing to trade his copy
of Genius5 (or maybe Fritz4...) against my Rebel 8-copy... ? Email me if
interested.
(only originals of course)
Tom C. Kerrigan
Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> > "knows how to underpromote to achieve mate"? "but doesn't know how to
> > report that fact beforehand in its mate finder"?
> > You have some really weird ideas about how a chess program works.
> I am only reporting what I and many others have seen with Genius 5.
> If you had the program you would know what we are talking about.
You and many others have seen how a heuristic to underpromote to mate can
somehow report back to a mate finder?
Please, at least read something about alpha-beta. It should take all of
half an hour, unless you have a particularly tiny brain... (no comments
about that...)
Cheers,
Tom
Ed Schroder
>Cheers,
>Tom
Perhaps the the position in question should be tried with HASH=NONE
and the program will see the mate in 5.
The whole case smells to a hash collision since the Rebel mate finder
sometimes does have the same problem.
I didn't try, maybe someone else can...
- Ed Schroder -
Komputer Korner
Tom C. Kerrigan wrote:
>
> Komputer Korner (kor...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
> > > "knows how to underpromote to achieve mate"? "but doesn't know how to
> > > report that fact beforehand in its mate finder"?
> > > You have some really weird ideas about how a chess program works.
> > I am only reporting what I and many others have seen with Genius 5.
> > If you had the program you would know what we are talking about.
>
> You and many others have seen how a heuristic to underpromote to mate can
> somehow report back to a mate finder?
>
> Please, at least read something about alpha-beta. It should take all of
> half an hour, unless you have a particularly tiny brain... (no comments
> about that...)
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
Tom,
I hope that you read Ed's answer to your insulting post.
You may be a programmer but you need a course in civility. We all
told you what we have found was a problem in a certain position
with Genius 5 and even though you don't have that program, you
insisted on commenting and implied that we were fools for
reporting on what we found.
Harald Faber
quoting a mail from hgj # xs4all.nl
Hello Herbert,
HGJ> From: h...@xs4all.nl (Herbert Groot Jebbink)
HGJ> Subject: Re: EUROCHESS Scandal
HGJ> On Sun, 02 Mar 1997, <chr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
HGJ>
HGJ> >I am in favour of debate and clarification of issues on usenet, but not
HGJ> >trial by the mob.
HGJ> >I realise I'm in a minority of one.
HGJ>
HGJ> No, you are not.
HGJ> - hgj
Now we are at least 3. :-)
It is always senseful to know facts. But we don't know them, we just heard
one point of view.
Harald
--
Harald Faber
quoting a mail from korner # netcom.ca
Hello Komputer,
KK> From: Komputer Korner <kor...@netcom.ca>
KK> Subject: Re: EUROCHESS Scandal
KK> Organization: Netcom Canada
KK> What is the full name of the owner of EuroChess?
KK> Komputer Korner
Martin Stamer
Harald
--
Chessworks
I also think it is appropriate for Marty to post here. Suing a company is
a major expense. Of course one should not launch a flame war, but the
Court of Public Opinion is often swifter and more effective than a
lawsuit.
For example, I have waited patiently for months for Mindscape to honor its
commitments to me regarding Chessmaster 5000. They promised certain things
in exchange for using games from the DejaVu database. They have not
delivered and show no intention of doing so.
After 6 months of silence, I will be acting in both arenas.
I understand Marty's position.
Eric Schiller