Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:49:29 11/11/97
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks for the possibility to get questions like this here to a proposedly serious group like ccc. Because on rgcc I could learn that such nonsense could not lead to the consequence that people got to the conclusion that there might be something wrong with some people's logic. While not being too deep into English notions I still want to pretend that I know something about logic. To make it quite clear and therefore to oppose all such nonsense of what I might have said or of what that meant, I declare that I never said that positively what some people tried to insinuate. So, I did never accuse someone of cheating in Paris. What I did and people should check that, that was a *QUESTION*. Because there were some details I couldn't understand. I asked for a tool that allowed to tune the remis acceptance before the game started. Although someone did agree to that already, it seems still possible to insinuate nonsense to my question. But that is not the whole story yet. I also questioned for an unknown feature which allowed in advance to tune in that special situation in dependance of the outcome of the Junior game. NOTE "before the game". So also here all nonsense about cheating OTB is crap. As I said in rgcc, in human chess the reasoning would follow my suppositions. Why not playing for a draw in case Junior made it anyhow, and at the same time go for a not yet found continuation which would allow VIRTUAL to win the championship... Folks, I asked if such a tool was thinkable, if yes, if it was practible. I hope that such questions are still allowed in a moderated group. Note also that even if that was possible, the question would still be open if CST and team would ever have agreed to such procedurings.... Ok, this time I had the chance to justify my question and position. But in other casews unfortunately the proof that others acted against *me* with such insinuations was not yet to make believable to a majority. But nevertheless it happened. And I called it character assassination. A juridical notion. The least could be now, that the insinuation that I *had* accused soemone would be corrected with some apology. What? Nobody attacked me for accusing someone? Then please read below the quote I referred to in my post. There someone asked me if I had yet substantiated my accusations against the operator of CST.... =========== Finally to the theory of a moral winner. Let's stay reasonable in scientifical terms. I made the statement that *then* CST would be the winner related to the biggest step forward and at the same time in comparison to its concurrent which all work with higher NPS.... Moral is another story. I for one would give that medal to ANANSE. Apparently the only *real* amateur in the field. And I want to praise his author's sportsmensship! R. Tueschen
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.