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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Aegon Tournament 1990; Hitech best overall.

96 views
Skip to first unread message

Hans Berliner

unread,
May 25, 1990, 5:08:48 PM5/25/90
to
Hitech wins International Chess Tournament; beats former World Candidate

Pittsburgh, May 24, 1990. --

Carnegie Mellon University's Hitech chess computer ran off with the laurels
in a strong chess tournament held over the last three weeks in The
Netherlands. Hitech competed via a trans-Atlantic computer network
connection. The AEGON tourney pitted 14 of the top computers in the World
against 14 strong humans. Among the humans were International Grandmaster
(IGM) David Bronstein of the USSR, who drew a match for the World
Championship in 1951, and IGM Jeroen Piket who is the second best player in
Holland. Hitech surprised most observers by beating Bronstein, and drawing
with Piket and won 3 other games against Dutch Masters to finish with a
undefeated record of four wins and two draws. Its 5 - 1 record was matched
by Piket and National Master Blokhuis, both of whom also had 5 - 1, but had
inferior tie-break points.

David Bronstein in the strongest all-time player ever to be defeated by a
computer. This tournament was the most remarkable success of Hitech's
career. It achieved a performance rating of 2592 (about 2690 USCF) on the
FIDE scale which is in the Grandmaster category. The result was the more
remarkable in that these humans were well versed in playing computers, and
had previously shown considerable domination over the best commercially
available computers. However, Hitech's record of 5-1 (83% of the possible
points) compared to 3-3 (50%) for the next best computer. Overall, the
humans ouscored the computers by 47-37, but this was much closer than last
year, when the score was 57.5 - 23 in favor of the humans. This year the
field was stronger both in terms of human and computer participants.
However, Hitech played all the strongest humans in the tourney, including
defeating both the co-winners of last year's event.

After the tourney, Bronstein expressed an interest in a re-match with
Hitech. In this game Bronstein pressed hard and got the advantage but was
unable to break through Hitech's tough defence, so the game ended in a draw.
Thus, Hitech's score in its encounters against the two Grandmasters was one
win and two draws.

Hitech has been improving slowly based upon the idea that a computer can be
taught chess. The information being provided Hitech is principally pattern
information about important chess situations, and this improves its playing
strength. Hitech was rated 2150 on the US scale in 1985 when it first began
to play. Now its rating is 2413, and this has been achieved without any
increase in the speed of the Hitech hardware. Other advocates of computer
chess have argued that all that is required is sufficient speed in the
computer. The Deep Thought team which advocates this approach chose not to
participate in the tournament. However, Hitech has now won its last three
regularly timed tournaments. In August it won the Pennsylvania State Chess
Championship Tournament for the 3rd year in a row, in November it took
first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
tie-break over Deep Thought, and now it has achieved the best result in the
Aegon tournament

It has been getting progressively harder for computers to compete against
humans in chess, as all but about 3 or 4 important chess tournaments in
the US (where all the good chess computers are) are closed to computers.
Thus, it was a welcome opportunity for Hitech to be able to play in this
event, to show the result of recent improvements in its understanding.
We also appreciate the efforts of Dap Hartmann, who expertly ran Hitech at
the tournament site.

The win versus Bronstein follows:

White: David Bronstein Black: Hitech
AEGON Tournament, The Netherlands
Round 3, May 10,1990.

1 d4 d5
2 c4 d:c4
3 e4 e5
4 Nf3 e:d4
5 B:c4 Nc6
6 O-O Be6
7 B:e6 f:e6
8 Qb3 Qd7
9 Q:b7 Rb8
10 Qa6 Nf6
11 Nbd2 Bb4
12 Qd3 B:d2
13 N:d2 O-O
14 a3 Ne5
15 Qg3 Nh5
16 Qh4 Nf4
17 b4 Ne2+
18 Kh1 Nd3
19 Nb3 Qa4
20 Nc5 N:f2+
21 Q:f2 R:f2
22 Re1 Qc2
23 Bg5 Ng3+
24 h:g3 R:g2
Resigns

Feng-Hsiung Hsu

unread,
May 25, 1990, 7:59:29 PM5/25/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:
> Hitech was rated 2150 on the US scale in 1985 when it first began
> to play. Now its rating is 2413, and this has been achieved without any
> increase in the speed of the Hitech hardware. Other advocates of computer
> chess have argued that all that is required is sufficient speed in the
> computer. The Deep Thought team which advocates this approach chose not to
> participate in the tournament.

It probably should be pointed out that, given Hitech's speed, a 2413 rating
is roughly what one would expect from speed alone. If Deep Thought were
playing at Hitech's speed, it might very well be only a 2400 as Hitech is.
Of course, the commercial micros would have gotten much higher ratings than
either Hitech or Deep Thought for the same speed. I have some rough ideas
on how they do it, and the problem is not as simple as just speed and
knowledge. I personally do believe that speed alone is enough, but I don't
think it should be the only emphasis. As for Deep Thought's
non-participation, there was simply no sense in wasting time on an obsolete,
2-year old, bug-ridden version of the machine for some more publicity which
would not matter in a couple of years. The commercial micros are rapidly
catching up, and some of them, in my opinion, post far more serious threats
to Deep Thought than Hitech ever have been or will be. I don't intend to
stand still for them to overrun us. In fact, I am scared stiff.

> in November it took
> first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
> tie-break over Deep Thought

Hitech SHARED first place. Deep Thought won the individual encounter against
Hitech decisively for the third time, but lost to Mephisto in a difficult
positional game, which I am sure they would keep on reminding us in their
various ads:-) There was no stated tie-breaking system for the event, and
if we take either the individual encounter or the Kasparov-Karpov
precident:-), Deep Thought would have retained the sole possession of the
title.
--f...@ibm.com
#include <disclaims.h>

Stuart Cracraft

unread,
May 26, 1990, 2:27:28 AM5/26/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu> f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
>In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:
>Of course, the commercial micros would have gotten much higher ratings than
>either Hitech or Deep Thought for the same speed. I have some rough ideas
>on how they do it, and the problem is not as simple as just speed and
>knowledge. I personally do believe that speed alone is enough, but I don't
>think it should be the only emphasis.

I'll take this austere situation to announce a new program that
shows some promise. Its birthplace, neither Pennsylvania nor
New York, but California instead -- is called: "M Chess". It is
the new program by the authors of A.I. Chess.

In recent testing, M Chess has scored 4 draws, 3 losses, and
12 wins against Fidelity Mach 3 at 15 and 30 second time controls.
It has an active style.

>The commercial micros are rapidly
>catching up, and some of them, in my opinion, post far more serious threats
>to Deep Thought than Hitech ever have been or will be. I don't intend to
>stand still for them to overrun us. In fact, I am scared stiff.

Peace... There are major problems to solve in the
commercial arena, one of which is the acquisition of fast
680x0 and 80x86 chips. Current chips won't get within 100
points of the old Deep Thought, much less Blue Chip.

>> in November it took
>> first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
>> tie-break over Deep Thought
>
>Hitech SHARED first place. Deep Thought won the individual encounter against
>Hitech decisively for the third time, but lost to Mephisto in a difficult
>positional game, which I am sure they would keep on reminding us in their
>various ads:-) There was no stated tie-breaking system for the event, and
>if we take either the individual encounter or the Kasparov-Karpov
>precident:-), Deep Thought would have retained the sole possession of the
>title.

Bravo.

Stuart

Hans Berliner

unread,
May 26, 1990, 8:03:39 AM5/26/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
>
> It probably should be pointed out that, given Hitech's speed, a 2413 rating
> is roughly what one would expect from speed alone. If Deep Thought were
> playing at Hitech's speed, it might very well be only a 2400 as Hitech is.
> Of course, the commercial micros would have gotten much higher ratings than
> either Hitech or Deep Thought for the same speed.

What does this mean? Given speed alone, the micros who are 10 or more times
slower than Hitech should have ratings around 2100. Obviously there is an
important role for knowledge, else these micros would still be mired in the
muck and Hitech would not be getting better without speed increases. Is it
only knowledge approved by fhh that is important?

> > in November it took
> > first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
> > tie-break over Deep Thought
>

> Hitech SHARED first place. -----
> ------ There was no stated tie-breaking system for the event, ---

There WAS a stated tie-breaking system in this tournament and it involved
breaking the tie according to the Sonnenborne-Berger system. You may choose
to conveniently FORGET such niceties, but that is how Hitech got the first
place trophy which is on display in the Hitech lab. The fact that Deep
Thought was lost in almost every game it played in this event before finally
being nailed by Mephisto is, I suppose, also something that can be
conveniently forgotten.

Feng-Hsiung Hsu

unread,
May 26, 1990, 9:11:25 AM5/26/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:
> In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
> > Of course, the commercial micros would have gotten much higher ratings than
> > either Hitech or Deep Thought for the same speed.
> What does this mean? Given speed alone, the micros who are 10 or more times
> slower than Hitech should have ratings around 2100.

Then obviously they did not use speed alone. They have something extra that
is missing in BOTH Hitech and Deep Thought.

>
> > > in November it took
> > > first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
> > > tie-break over Deep Thought
> > Hitech SHARED first place. -----
> > ------ There was no stated tie-breaking system for the event, ---
> There WAS a stated tie-breaking system in this tournament and it involved
> breaking the tie according to the Sonnenborne-Berger system.

Hans, please check your tournament book first. In fact, it explicitly stated
that no tie-break will be used. There is currently a first place trophy right
in the lab 10 feet from where I sit. Yes, Deep Thought was lucky, especially
given the buggy version that we used. But I also won't deny that Mephisto
defeated Deep Thought fair and square. The main bugs had been found by then.
--f...@ibm.com
#include <disclaims.h>

Hans Berliner

unread,
May 26, 1990, 11:03:57 AM5/26/90
to

In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
in November it took
first place in the North American Computer Chess Championship Tournament on
tie-break over Deep Thought
< Hitech SHARED first place. -----
< ------ There was no stated tie-breaking system for the event, ---
* There WAS a stated tie-breaking system in this tournament and it involved
* breaking the tie according to the Sonnenborne-Berger system.

>
> Hans, please check your tournament book first. In fact, it explicitly stated
> that no tie-break will be used. There is currently a first place trophy right
> in the lab 10 feet from where I sit.

Anyone who was at the player's meeting will be able to testify that there
were a number of rules adopted that were beyond the rules in the tournament
handout. They dealt with adjudication and other matters, and among them was
the rule that while the money and title were to be shared in the case of ties
the trophies (if any) were to be awarded according to tie-break. Could
you be so kind as to tell the world where you got a first-place trophy from
and who circumvented the decision of the players in this matter.

Feng-Hsiung Hsu

unread,
May 28, 1990, 10:39:19 PM5/28/90
to
This discussion is starting to get to the point of wasting net bandwidth. Oh,
well.

In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:

> handout. They dealt with adjudication and other matters, and among them was
> the rule that while the money and title were to be shared in the case of
> ties the trophies (if any) were to be awarded according to tie-break. Could
> you be so kind as to tell the world where you got a first-place trophy from
> and who circumvented the decision of the players in this matter.

Hans obviously has an entirely different impression about the players' meeting
than the people I spoke to. I, for one, did not recall anything decided about
the tie-break, let alone the strange rule of sharing the prize and the title
but not the trophies in the case of a tie. As for the trophy, they came
directly from the ACM, and there was no one circumventing the decision of the
players, as there never was a decision. A simple phone call to the tournament
organizers from Hans would have resolved this by now.

Chris Long

unread,
May 28, 1990, 11:50:50 PM5/28/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, Hans Berliner writes:

> In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, Feng-Hsiung Hsu writes:

How about a Hitech vs Deep Thought match for the Usenet title? I'm
sure everyone would love to see this; in fact, I'd be willing to kick
in $20 towards an "official" trophy. We might even convince Stuart
to get M Chess, AI Chess, or Zarkov involved.

Well?

-Chris

Hans Berliner

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 2:46:43 PM6/1/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
> In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:
* handout. They dealt with adjudication and other matters, and among them was
* the rule that while the money and title were to be shared in the case of
* ties the trophies (if any) were to be awarded according to tie-break. Could
* you be so kind as to tell the world where you got a first-place trophy from
* and who circumvented the decision of the players in this matter.

>
> Hans obviously has an entirely different impression about the players' meeting
> than the people I spoke to. I, for one, did not recall anything decided about
> the tie-break, let alone the strange rule of sharing the prize and the title
> but not the trophies in the case of a tie. As for the trophy, they came
> directly from the ACM, and there was no one circumventing the decision of the
> players, as there never was a decision. A simple phone call to the tournament
> organizers from Hans would have resolved this by now.

As Confucius would say " Tsk. Tsk. Very serious memory lapse for person so
young." Let me refresh your memory. It was the last round of the 1989 ACM
tourney , and Deep Thought, as everyone could see, was losing to Mephisto.
This meant that Hitech and Deep Thought were going to end up tied for first
place.

Murray Campbell (who was with you) kept running over to see how the Cray
Blitz - Phoenix game was going, as that was going to decide the tie-break.
He must have gone over there every minute, frequently at your behest. Why
this interest in this game if it was not for the important tie-break
problem? Well Cray Blitz won, and the tie break went to Hitech. When
(tournament organizer; see above) Monty Newborn came to give the trophies,
he asked me if I would mind if Deep Thought would get the first place trophy
since they defeated Hitech. I pointed out to him that at the player's
meeting it was decided to give the trophies according to the tie-break
method. So he gave Hitech the first place trophy, and I thought that was
that. It is not the fairest method of doing things, but on the other hand
Hitech has been the victim of such things on a number of occasions too, and
on such occasions it never occurred to me to try to otherthrow what a group
of my peers had decided.

You appear to be in the business of re-writing history. I can bring two
people who very clearly remember the discussions and resolutions of the
player's meeting. And, by the way, all sorts of notes about the tie-break
are in the margin of my tournament book.

It must be very convenient to simply "forget" those things that don't fit
your game plan. Have you also "forgotten" how you and Thomas A. went
through my chess files on the K without ever asking my permission, just as
if they were public property? And I can give lots of other instances that
seem to be in line for "forgetting". I am sure the world would be very
interested in your comments on these matters, to give a more rounded view of
your comments.

Ilan Vardi

unread,
Jun 1, 1990, 10:33:11 PM6/1/90
to
In article <94...@pt.cs.cmu.edu> berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner) writes:
>As Confucius would say " Tsk. Tsk. Very serious memory lapse for person so
>young." Let me refresh your memory. It was the last round of the 1989 ACM

Since we're getting into ad hominem attacks, I have been waiting
2 years to point out the ``Clever Hans Effect''.

>It must be very convenient to simply "forget" those things that don't fit
>your game plan. Have you also "forgotten" how you and Thomas A. went

However, Hans Berliner has made a career of "forgetting" that Hitech
was actually built in large part by someone else (who wasn't his
student). In countless articles and interviews the "creator of Hitech"
has never brought this up (even though an award winning book was
written about this project).

Tom Tedrick

unread,
Jun 2, 1990, 3:48:34 AM6/2/90
to
->Since we're getting into ad hominem attacks, I have been waiting
->2 years to point out the ``Clever Hans Effect''.

->However, Hans Berliner has made a career of "forgetting" ...

Hans Berliner was World Correspondence Chess Champion before
these machines were created; I think that extraordinarily
difficult accomplishment should speak for itself (speaking
as one who recently survived the UCSF Absolute Championship,
the World Championship competition must be incredible :-)

It's quite bizarre to see chess non-entities (as far as playing
skill goes) sniping at a former World Champion.

As far as credibility goes, never have I known Berliner to
make an untruthful statement.

**************************************************************
"The first ground handful of nitre, sulphur and charcoal drove
monk Schwartz's pestle through the ceiling: what will the last
do?" -T. Carlyle

Preston Briggs

unread,
Jun 2, 1990, 11:44:33 AM6/2/90
to

>However, Hans Berliner has made a career of "forgetting" that Hitech
>was actually built in large part by someone else (who wasn't his
>student). In countless articles and interviews the "creator of Hitech"
>has never brought this up (even though an award winning book was
>written about this project).

I think "career" is rather overstating the case.

Carl Ebeling's thesis, entitled "All the Right Moves", was an
ACM Distinguished Dissertation in 1986. As such, it was published
by The MIT Press.

In the acknowledgements, Ebeling lists his committee as
Bob Sproull, Hans Berliner, Raj Reddy, and Ken Thompson.
I won't give inadequate biographies, but they *are* a remarkable
group. His advisor was Bob Sproull. About Berliner, he says:

I especially thank Hans Berliner, with whom I have spent
many fruitful hours discussing the ideas in this thesis.
It was he who first interested me in this topic and he
who kept the momentum going when my energy flagged. Hans
also provided the majority of the chess knowledge in
Hitech's evaluation function.

--
Preston Briggs looking for the great leap forward
pre...@titan.rice.edu

Lewis Stiller

unread,
Jun 2, 1990, 2:53:44 PM6/2/90
to
Computer chess is the most elegant field of applied computer science.
Let our conduct reflect this.

lewis

John Murray

unread,
Jun 2, 1990, 8:41:33 PM6/2/90
to
Somewhere in this minor flamewar there lurks a truism having to do with
Artificial Intelligence researchers being driven by a feeling of inadequacy.

Disclaimer: JUST KIDDING, GUYS!

John R. Murray
mur...@fsu.scri.fsu.edu (128.186.2.179)

Louis Blair

unread,
Jun 2, 1990, 11:44:25 PM6/2/90
to
Hans, Feng-Hsiung

At the risk of being flamed by both of you,
I have to say that I don't think anyone
really cares very much about what the
tie-breaking rules were. Of somewhat
greater interest would be the chess
knowledge issue that was raised earlier.
If I understood your notes correctly, you
both think that better chess knowledge
is an important part of making a better
chess computer. Feng-Hsiung Hsu seems
to think that the commercial chess machines
have the most chess knowledge at the
moment, although I'm not sure whether
this is anything more than a guess on his
part. I understand that the commercial
chess machine makers tend to be rather
secretive. I think we would all be
interested in knowing your views
on the amount of chess knowledge in
the various chess machines today and
how this is likely to change in the future.

Feng-Hsiung Hsu

unread,
Jun 3, 1990, 4:32:44 PM6/3/90
to
Possibly only point 3 is of general interest.

1. The day after the tournament, Newborn confirmed that there was no
tie-break and there would be two first-place trophies. There are in
fact now two first-place trophies.

2. Before ChipTest was built, Thomas had a toy chess program that used a piece
placement table filled with values arbitrarily chosen by him. When I
built the pre-ChipTest chip tester, Thomas ported his program over. We
wanted to put in somewhat more intelligent values, and AFTER getting
consent from Hans, Thomas grabbed the table that Hans used at one time.
I did look at Hans' directory before I notice the existence of the table;
had I known that Hans is so sensitive about his unprotected directories,
I would not even have looked. Neither Thomas nor I had looked at
Berliner's directory since; we had no reasons to, as neither of us worked
on the software part of the evaluation function after Murray volunteered
his help. ChipTest subsequently contained some code which Murray took
from Hitech and we had publicly acknowledged this fact. When Deep Thought
was built, we made it a point not to even look at ChipTest's code, let
alone anything from Hitech.

3. Louis, there is evidence that the commercial programs are indeed stronger
than the academic programs for a given speed. All the points that DT lost
to other computers are at the hands of the commercial programs, and both
Cray Blitz and Hitech have their shares of problems with the commercial
programs. Some of the commercial ads may overstate the strength of the
commercial machines, but the top commercial programs are now roughly
300 rating points stronger than the top academic machines would
have been at the same speed, assuming that the academic machines lose
200 rating point for every six-fold reduction in speed.

Noam Elkies

unread,
Jun 3, 1990, 4:41:39 PM6/3/90
to
In article <95...@pt.cs.cmu.edu> f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:
> [...] but the top commercial programs are now roughly

> 300 rating points stronger than the top academic machines would
> have been at the same speed, assuming that the academic machines lose
> 200 rating point for every six-fold reduction in speed.

So how strong would they be at the academics' speeds, or even at 1000 times
that (roughly the speed projected for the post-DT machine planned at IBM)?
Presumably rather less than 300 points stronger, seeing that this would place
them around 3000...?!

--Noam D. Elkies (elk...@zariski.harvard.edu)
Department of Mathematics, Harvard University

Hans Berliner

unread,
Jun 5, 1990, 6:24:38 PM6/5/90
to
With respect to the trophy situation for the 1989 North American tourney:
Dr. Hsu has now shifted his ground so many times that I leave it to the
readers of this net to decide where truth may lie. He started off by saying
that of course there was no tie-break for anything; now he maintains that
there was concern about tie-break but this was quietly worked out in small
groups and no one is quite sure who, where or when.

In article <95...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, f...@vlsi.cs.cmu.edu (Feng-Hsiung Hsu) writes:

> 2. Before ChipTest was built, Thomas had a toy chess program that used a piece
> placement table filled with values arbitrarily chosen by him. When I
> built the pre-ChipTest chip tester, Thomas ported his program over. We
> wanted to put in somewhat more intelligent values, and AFTER getting
> consent from Hans, Thomas grabbed the table that Hans used at one time.
> I did look at Hans' directory before I notice the existence of the table;
> had I known that Hans is so sensitive about his unprotected directories,

I gave the consent after they showed me the table they had copied and asked
whether they could use it. Going into someone's directories and then asking
him whether you can use the material is like going into the unlocked residence
of someone you do not know. Possibly someone who thinks that system breaking
is an acceptable act would also think this is OK. By the way this particular
point of contention is an example of possibly a dozen similar points of
contention involving in my view, gross violations of ethical standards.

> ---- , and both


> Cray Blitz and Hitech have their shares of problems with the commercial
> programs.

Hitech has failed to win against a micro only one time when it threw away a
winning ending against Fidelity in the 1988 ACM because of a pattern
recognizer bug. Hitech has won all the rest of its games against micros,
three in the 1986 World tourney, two in the 89 ACM, and two in the 1989
world championship. This makes its score against micros 7-1. Anyone out
there have a better percentage?? Not DT for sure, since it has lost to
Mephisto and drawn with Fidelity. So what is the factual basis of the above
statement? I am at a loss to understand where it comes from. On top of
that in the Aegon tourney just concluded Hitech finished with 83%, to 50%
for the best micro (and these are pre-production models).

Ozan Yigit

unread,
Jun 7, 1990, 2:20:41 PM6/7/90
to
In article <95...@pt.cs.cmu.edu> berl...@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Hans Berliner)
writes:

>Dr. Hsu has now shifted his ground so many times that I leave it to the
>readers of this net to decide where truth may lie.

What exactly is your gripe or problem (aside from what appears to be a
cronic case of obnoxiousness) anyway?? Instead of hand-waving and innuendo,
why don't you just come up and say whatever it is you have in your mind?
Is it your intention to discredit DT or its authors? Fine, why not print a
letter in ICCA journal airing all your gripes, substantiate your claims
regarding whatever wrongdoings there may be, and let the rest of the
computer chess community to assess the situation. If you are not willing
to go that far, than I do not see why you or your claims should be taken
seriously at all.

>I gave the consent after they showed me the table they had copied and asked
>whether they could use it.

If you have given consent, further discussion is moot. If you had a
problem with the access to that table, you should have aired it at that
time, and should have withhold your permission. But it appears that you saw
nothing wrong at the time, perhaps because you and Hitech had the spotlight.
Now, it all looks like (and perhaps is) sour grapes.

>Going into someone's directories and then asking
>him whether you can use the material is like going into the unlocked residence
>of someone you do not know.

Oh, it is that simple eh ?? A (false) analogy as a solution to a complex
problem of ethics and/in computer use. Truly fascinating. :-)

>Possibly someone who thinks that system breaking
>is an acceptable act would also think this is OK.

This is a *fallacy* much like "only a murderer would support abortion".
please refer to any intro book on Logic and Rhetoric.

>point of contention is an example of possibly a dozen similar points of
>contention involving in my view, gross violations of ethical standards.

Again, if you have anything important to day, say it publicly, and
substantiate it, instead of just "suggesting" some wrongdoings, which,
I would dare say, is very, very low.

oz
--
First learn your horn and all the theory. Internet: o...@nexus.yorku.ca
Next develop a style. Then forget all that uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz
and just play. Charlie Parker [?] York U. CCS: (416) 736 5257

0 new messages