Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:02:44 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 16:34:25, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >also EVERYONE knows the opposite, weiner/meyer-kahlen again are trying to cheat >the court. they try to accuse me for a false oath. today again they are saying >the following: > >"mr kästner has used insider knowledge of shredder to prepare rebel and tiger >for london against shredder. in computershaak mr noomen himself wrote: "at the >last moment, after a telephone-call with marcus kästner, i decided to use a >secret weapon against shredder..." so it´s clear that mr kästner has recommended >the openings for schröder b.v." It is not clear that you have used insider knoweldge of shredder to prepare Rebel and tiger against shredder even if I assume that you recommended the openings for schröder b.v. It is possible that the secret weapon was based only on games of shredder4 and not on games of shredder4.xx and in this case no insider knowledge was used. I am not a lawyer but I think that weiner's claims in the court are not convincing and you do not need to answer them because I see no proof of using insider knowledge to prepare Rebel and Tiger even if you helped Rebel and Tiger in the opening prepration against shredder. > >this they said OF COURSE they are knowing exactly that this is false! >some weeks before ed, jeroen and christophe definetely said that ONLY jeroen was >responsible for the opening choice! The fact that jeroen has the last word about the opening choice does not prove and does not contradict weiner's claim in the court so I think that it is not relevant. I assume that saying that ONLY jeroen was responsible means ONLY that he has the last word about the opening choice but maybe there is a misunderstanding and it means also not discussing about the opening choice with other people. Uri
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.