Author: William Musson
Date: 05:15:56 04/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 16:08:59, Thorsten Czub wrote: >IMO you cannot solve a conflict with both sides >arguing: > >i am right. you are wrong. > >no. you are wrong. i am right. > >this does not help anyway... > Ok, so what is clear? Let's state the obvious. This is a computer chess board. The majority liked on-topics are technical, hash tables and stuff; games and results; which program is strongest. There is a limited space for the 'politics' of computer chess. What drives the majority crazy is extended, unsolveable political conflict. The rights and wrongs of going to Jakarta; the rights and wrongs of censorship; endless disagreement over who gets to play Kramnik. When rgcc disintegrated in 1997, there were two strands of thought. One was to create a moderated technical computer chess forum (rec.games.chess.programming), the other to create a moderated technical and political combined chess forum (CCC). CCC was what happened and has shown that the idea of combining political and technical together such that political occupies substantial space doesn't work. The majority don't like it. Most of the programmers don't like it. A little is ok, but too much is too much, is the view. I take a completely different view. The techniques side of things is 'been there, done that', boring for me. The unsolvable political conflict, that people don't agree, that that have wildly differing opinions and why, that no synthesis is possible, I find quite fascinating. What is clear is that trying to force a political space onto a majority that doesn't want it is not effective. Finding weakness and anomolies in the opposing position and working on ways to expose those anomolies appears to make 'logical and rational' sense, but, if people don't want it; they are not going to accept the 'logic'. Getting round bans by creating an alias account gets cited as evidence for more ban, so that doesn't help create political space either - probably it just closes it down further. Ultimately it is only computer chess and doesn't really matter. It is hardly Bosnia, or Kosovo or even a foot-and-mouth epidemic. I stopped looking at chess source code more than 18 months ago. I sold the business 12 months ago; I no longer should have anything more than a passing residual interest here, sparked off this time by the Kramnik situation, in which I could get all puffed up on a told-you-so, they're-all-devious-crooks agenda. I should have just stayed out. When I was 'in' computer chess - the issues seemed important to me. Now I'm not, so, the conclusion is obvious. To Ed: I'm sorry our friendship fell apart in 1997. 'Internet' friendships are pretty fragile things and don't survive storms. To Bruce: Internet enemyships are very stable, well reinforced by storms. I can understand that the Bella Freud fake blew out of control, and that you, through no fault of your own, felt personally humiliated. That wasn't my intention, the idea with her was to survive a little longer before the off switch got pressed, but I apologise for the unintended grief you got on your personal space. I hope the rest of enjoy your computer chess. Meanwhile, outside my office window are the chickens. One cockerel is trying to kill the other one (actually his own father). Every day I go chase them with a stick - they stop, but then start up again later. If they really can't live together we normally solve it by taking one of them and losing him in the woods. Always the father - we keep the son, until next year, and so the cycle continues. The remaining chickens remain oblivious to it all, and it keeps us in eggs. A little further away on some waste land are a group of feral cats. The Tom marks out his territory by spraying all over it. He can tolerate the occasional other Tom spraying, he just comes and sprays in the same area himself. What he can't tolerate is another Tom spraying everywhere on the same territory. Another territory, no problem, but not his. And I hope the Kramnik drama goes off peacefully. Try not to get too worked up about it. Chris Whittington >instead we could see it the following way: > >chris has been thrown out. > >i don't care if he wants in or not. >but when he posts, i would appreciate that he can post with his name. >so that anybody knows WHO is the xyz that has posted this or that. >thats the main problem with an anonymous post: you don't know who >is the guy you don't like. > >look. if chris was once a chess programmer, i think he has the right >to get an account here. and he has maybe the right to fuck off >when he wants. and come maybe back in a few years. > >i don't think he is out for pissing on people. > >we are all pissed off from time to time. >and in other times, we are very nice and kind and do senseful things. > >but we should not, try to seperate people out only because we have different >opinion. > >i would fight for bob, in the same way i would fight for chris or bruce, >i would fight for frederic to get his account back, and of course for amir. >i know that mogens is different opinion than i am, or chessfun. >but i would not like to see somebody throw them out. > >because computerchess would be boring when only ONE point of view is posted. >or only ONE opinion is there. > >i do not believe that computerchess will make progress when there is only >the political correct way to do it. > >isn't it democracy to fight for the right of your opponent ? >when i feel that ossi weiner is right, and his enemies are wrong, >i say so. if he says something i don't like, i say so. >same counts for any other. > >i am not biased for ONE person or against ONE person in general. >if somebody is discriminated for his personal ideals and point of views, >the whole group and the whole community is shit. > > >tolerance is no one way street. not only the individual has to be tolerant. >also the group has to be tolerant. > >are'nt we humans. can't we forgive ? >i can forgive even my deepest enemy. cause he might be an enemy, but he is still >a human beeing and all human rights count for HIM too. > >so i don't see the problem. instead of arguing if somebody is right or not, >just give him what he wants, and thats it. > >if somebody is hungry, i give him to eat. if somebody wants something to drink, >give it to him. if somebody wants to come in, let him. > >i do not really see the problem. i think there is a kind of host-rules. > >one of these rules is: try to be a human beeing. > >in german (dialect from where i come from): "bleiben'se mensch!" > > >of course when somebody on your party is pissing on all people all the way, >i will throw him out. but i don't think chris is this kind of person. >i was on his birthday in england. it as very funny, like a peter greenaway >movie. a little bourgeois. but --- over all very nice. > >i want to see him back. not because he has similar ideas i do have. but because >he has done a good job with cstal, and he is sometimes very funny and >good in making ideas and points clear. > >i don't see him as a plague of this forum, like tueschen was for rgcc. > >he is a chess programmer, and he has IMO the same right as marty hirsch or >mark uniacke or christophe theron or ed schroeder or bob hyatt or bruce moreland >or stefan meyer-kahlen has, the right to be in a group of other >chess programmers. all the gossip that people spread is unimportant for me. >for me counts in the end, how his chess program is. > >you have to see the personal stuff and the chess program. >i can be FOR chrilly donninger but against his pre-processing nimzos. >and i can be FOR nimzo when the program plays better chess. >i like e.g. don daily, because he is a nice guy and gives something to >computerchess. i know many others too that have the same thing for me. >they make my day very interesting. chris is in this group. >i like to read his posts, especially when these posts are not too agressive >but interesting as the moves of cstal have been. > >i like to read from others too. we once had interesting discussions in rgcc >about so many things. i don't know why this is impossible here. > >where does all the hate and fear come from ? > >there is nothing to lose. >we are ONE community. > >no matter if you are tarrasch, lasker, steinitz or capablanca. >no matter if you are morsch, whittington, lang or meyer-kahlen.
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.