Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:12:01 09/27/97
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 1997 at 13:35:06, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On September 27, 1997 at 12:52:30, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>You post this howl of rage, and yet you won't say what you are howling >>about. >> >>"The ICCA sucks because they have done something wrong to MChess", is >>what I am reading here. >> >>What have they done wrong to MChess? >> >>If you won't say what they have done wrong to MChess, then why start >>this tangent? > >I'm not taking any sides in this right now, I've better things to spend >my energy on. > >Issue basically is: > >Is icca for its members ? > >or is icca for itself ? > >I guess Thorsten was using Mchess as an illustration, because he >believes icca is for itself. Exactly ! This is my question ! I thought ICCA is an organisation FOR computerchess/programmers. It helps to organise championships, publishes a journal an has nice guys doing some nice jobs (tournament-director, referee, advisor, helpers etc.). The programmer has to pay a fee each year to get membership. In exchange he gets the journal and is allowed to participate the ICCA events. My impression in REAL was (caused by different events) different. Whenever I mention these events/situations I collect, people call me mad (bruce in this thread a few lengths before), bann me (jaap van den herik did not allow me to pay my membership any further), tell in exchange the situations I told are not true, or that this is an attack or that ICCA is a club of nice guys. I understand under democracy that the members are allowed to ask questions like: Why forced the referee the participant a to come with him using a: if you don't come with me - I kick you in the face punishment ? Or: In Paderborn there was a strange decision by David Levy about the amateur-title. The austrian team by Donninger and Co was so angry about the decision (also they had not much time and were maybe tired) that they drove away early. ICCA decided NOT to split the amateur title. You can reread this problems in Computer Schach & Spiele, edition 6/95 page 20: it is said, and I translate very roughly: "When the difficulties/argument between Donninger and Van den Herik reached the climax, David Levy was called by telephone to give a decision... Levy, who was only connected via telephone at this stage, did not register the highly emotionalized and tensioned/suspensed situation. Although the ICCA gave 2 titles in the professional group they did not give 2 titles in the amateur field. It came to a scandal [...] Bruce Moreland was given the title because of the better Buchholz-ranking. WHEN WILL ICCA MAKE CLEAR DECISIONS FOLLOWING A SET OF RULES/LAWS FOR THEIR CHAMPIONSHIPS ? " I want to ask these questions without beeing banned for asking them ! >He believes this, I guess, out of personal >experience. For example, it seems that Thorsten is in effect banned >right now. Thorsten can tell us about this if he wants. Right. And the strange thing about this is: I have never given a written piece of paper about, nor the decision by the board in written letter, nor the RULE for this decision !! I guess the ICCA seems to be allowed to do whatever they want without any reason or rule or law ! The guy who told me this decision (Jaap van den Herik) is exactly the person i criticised !!! Maybe this helps you with understanding me better bruce ! > >My past experience is that icca is for itself. > >Probably once it was not, but after many years, these things have a >habit of ossifying and becoming entrenched. I think that is what has >happened. > >We can carry on with tis, tisn't, tis, tisn't, Thorsten, Bruce, me, Bob >for a long time. Essentially one side believes one thing and the other >not. > >Its also unlikely that either side will change its view. Is this really a story about believes ??? Is it normal that the ICCA has thrown me out without giving me a paper or explanation concerning my critics ? I myself searched the discussion with Jaap , because I saw him in Den Haag. Our discussion seemed to be fruitfull. In fact, he said something like: I have to ask the board if they allow you to continue your paying of the membership ! This was it ! Because of WHICH decision ? Which law ? Which thing? > >Chris
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.