Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:21:43 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 16:46:07, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 17, 2000 at 10:03:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >(snip) > >>You keep trolling this same argument. It is bogus. The initial claim of >>cheating was made public _prior_ to the NY Times article you are quoting. It >>is quite obvious. Otherwise how would Murray "Shrug off the accusation"??? He >>would first make it public then shrug it off? >> >>Nonsense. > >Please try to behave politely if you can. :) > >Your reasoning is wrong. Otherwise how would Murray shrug off. I told you how he >shrugged of. Perhaps you know nothing about newspapers but here it's clear that >Murray who shrugged off was from the side that distributed the news. There was >_no_ public accusation by Kasparov before that NY Times' article. That is nonsense. If you read the article, you will find he was _asked_ about the cheating allegation and "he shrugged it off". Shrugging something off is something you do when you are asked about something and you don't want to respond. you "shrug" your shoulders and don't respond. It is _definitely_ not something you do as a way of revealing you were accused. Shrugging is a response. Not an initial statement... You really are Rolf, right? The writing style is so close as to be an almost perfect simulcrum. You keep returning to this one point, no matter what the topic of the thread, just like Rolf would. make a statement here, but also toss out a couple of trolls to keep things going... > >I begin to believe that you are a real dreamer. You continue to spread news >about a press conference after game two and you have no proof for such an event. >Just dreaming? Nope... I am talking to a dreamer... but he won't wake up... > >But then accusing me of "trolling", insulting what I talked about as "bogus". >This is a serious CCC or a theater for fantasies? _You_ can dream about all >things and can accuse others of trolling? Who put you into that position? > >Please try to behave properly like a gentleman. > >I promise you that I will believe you if you showed me the proof for the public >accusation of Kasparov _before_ that newspaper article. But if you can't prove >that then please keep quit and stop your dreaming. > > >It's telling when you declare the whole question as moot, when it's at the same >time the base for your "opinions" about Kasparov. Are the log files now public? Yes. Does Kasparov still claim that they are secret? Yes. That alone is enough to brand him a jerk. He has _never_ retracted that nonsense. And continues to make the same statements. With very simple proof to the contrary available. You fit that same mindset it seems.. > >However it is clear. If the DB team went into the public with that story about >accusations Kasparov did never publish _before_, it's the DB team who opened >that psychowar which irritated Kasparov so much. Therefore he lost and therefore >the whole event has no meaning besides the well-known fact that a human can be >influenced by a psychowar and he then might play chess under his normal level. >Great news. Thanks to Hsu and his folks. "Murray" et al... > >This is not a moot question. It's a scandal how you put the blame on Kasparov >and still insult him as a "jerk". On data fully imagined in your fantasies, >without any proof up to now! > A scandal? One of Rolf's favorite words... > >We have a second scandal. You were the one who had always strongly objected the >idea alone of a possible cheating in 1997. You always argued that the idea alone >would be unbelievable. Interesting how you now twist your strategy and explained >that _of course_ there could have been always cheating, but that this couldn't >be prevented. > Now I am sure... go away... >I repeat my point. If Kasparov had data (from his understanding of chess and >computerchess) that in the second game something wasn't kosher then he had the >right to speak about. He didn't do that in public at first. He asked for the >prints in private. But then after the publication in the NY Times he could also >talk about in public. And what was his insult? Was a cheating possible or not? >Yes, you declared, of course it was _possible_. You don't think that it >happened, but it could have been possible. So, what is the scandal in Kasparov's >question for the prints. As we know now the scandal lies in the tragic of >Kasparov himself who seemed to be unaware of the fact that even the prints >couldn't prove a cheating with certainty. If he had known this he would probably >not asked for them. > > >Instead of discussing all this with patience and friendly manners you react as >if such a debate as such is a scandal. But you know from your chessic wisdom >that Kasparov is a bad loser. Excuse me if I must laugh. As if you have >understood what Kasparov had in mind during the second game. > >On the contrary if computerchess people are attacked for their behavior, you >react like an oversensitive child. But about genial chessplayers you can spread >insults as if they were just some average idiots. > > >Let's try to debate here in CCC like gentlemen. Please. > >Also in the genuine interest of computerchess. Please, show some respect for the >genius among the chessplayers! righto... not on my watch, sorry...
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.