Re: A Crime by a Board of Old Imposters

henri Arsenault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>
>
>> good to know that your name is Sidney and not Jaap, otherwise people would
>> attend a good demonstrations of the lack of flexibility of Jaap vd Herik.
>> Smartness often makes circles and this is such a circle here. You simply 
>> don't
>> or won't get it what Bob hyatt is telling you. Reason? Because you have the
>> prejudice that you want to prove that jaa, the TD, has done a good job.
>
>Look, Rolf, this is getting boring. Everytime someone says something 
>that you disagree with, you attack his motives. yet the whole argument 
>that you are trying to present is an attack on the motives of Jaap.

For sure you must have misunderstood me. I said what he _did_ wrong. Not what
motives stood behind his wrongdoings.



>At 
>least try to be consistent.

Thanks, I try my best.


>
>If you have arguments, present them.


They are already all there. But Sidney and probably you also you both don't
understand these arguments. I am saying in principle what R. Hyatt is saying.
He has the most experinece of all here and in other newsgroups. Speaking of
computerchess.

But what we have is not a climate of decent debating. We have a usenet game
between certain people who say what are the rules and how they should have been
applied at the Graz incidents. That is the rational party. I follow this group.

Then we have people, here in rgcc, who have  different opinions about these
rules and their application. They try to twist the situation in Graz so that
they can conclude that the TD was right in his decisions.

But fortunately I see clearly what is going on. What was the situation? We had
a 3-fold-repetition. Right or wrong?? Yes it was on the board. Now the
situation is absolutely clear. The Jonny program (GUI & engine together) saw
it. More, it expressed it. I leave out what SHREDDER did because that is
uninteresting. Now the only thing the Jonny operator should have done -
following the rules /tradition in computerchess, where the operator should
always do what the program expressed, -- he should have claimed a draw. He has
no other choice. 

But this young unexperienced man, however strong chessplayer himself, began to
reflect the SHREDDER situation. What had caused the situation where SHREDDER
had such a huge advantage etc. Also that SHREDDER would be third in case of a
draw etc. That is all very normal for a human being, but as the operator he
can't do but one thing: he must claim a draw.

He didn't do that but he continued to make the TD a bit nervous. Formerly he
also wanted to give up but TD refused. Now, when the game was an objective
draw, he wanted to play on so that SHREDDER could still win the game.
That is all very indecent.

Johannes Zwanzger quickly made a move. Because, that was his idea from human
chess, if he had made that move then the draw would no longer exist. In the
meantime a very slow Jaap came to the board. And now Jaap made a gross mistake.
Normally he should have ordered the take-back of the played move and
continuation of the game in the former position which was a repetition 3 times.
So then the game would have been a draw. But Jaap vd Herik ordered that the
game should go on. So - SHREDDER won in the end.

But the biggest scandal happened later. A decision had justified the
continuation of the game when Zwanzger described in detail his thoughts during
that situation. He confessed that he didn't want that SHREDDER played a draw,
so therefore he had NOT claimed the repetition. - He couldn't have made clearer
that he had cheated. But what did the TD do then? Because the former decision
allegedly was final, the decision was left untouched. 

Now, we are talking about such a cheat. A complete violation of the rules of
computerchess. And we have people, many people, who congratulate this young
programmer for his human touch.

Bullshit! He spoiled the whole event with his cheat. Now SHREDDER got his tie
instead of place three and he won the tie. And all that was made possible by
the cheat of this young ignorant.

These are the facts. These are not opinions. Or prejudices. No, that is all
rational analysis of the event.

Plus some jokes of course. Because you can't expect that I discuss such a cheat
without explaining the incredible stupidity of the TD decisions. Bob Hyatt
exactly said the same about the stupidity.

But that is against the interests of certain parties. They prefer having such a
lame TD who makes the decisions. After all these mistakes he's now like wax in
the hands of the interested parties. I think that next time the players and
operators can order appropriate decisions at will! Because we have a TD who has
no talents to make the right decisions. So that is the best man for players who
want possible extra rights. Or for a company which has to out-balance the
interests of four or five home parties. You know the question who plays
Kasparov in NY, who is Wch, whose merchandising has highest priority. Certainly
Johannes Zwanzger has good chances to be a new member in the ChessBase
family...  :)

We are all manipulated. Look, Henri, since LIST was banned I have it in my
engines folder. Formerly I was content with FRITZ and CRAFTY. But now my
emotions are boiling. I must show my solidarity with that misused programmer.
On the other side I will boycott any Jonny engine. No chance!

Rolf

P.S. I am not forced to tell you what I have written out of what motivaton. Try
to create the enigma to read my lips.
 


> Ad hominem arguments prove nothing. 
>Personally I don't know any of the people involved, but I know Bob Hyatt 
>from reading this newsgroup, and I respect him, but like some others, I 
>happen to disagree with him in this case. In your mind, everyone who 
>happens to disagree with you is either dishonest or stupid.
>
>Please change the tune.
>
>Henri