Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 01:57:41 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 19:16:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 18:34:46, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>On May 03, 2001 at 18:04:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On May 03, 2001 at 17:04:05, Larry Proffer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Given the inconsistencies in the Ed Schroder - Christophe Theron position vis a >>>>vis Rebel and Tiger position, participation, withdrawal or whatever in the BGN >>>>qualifier, it is not possible to rely, in my opinion, on the statement of Ed >>>>Schroder that he did not pursue his entry of Rebel into the qualifier in order >>>>to allow him to concentrate on the Tiger entry. >>> >>>On April 20 I was told a 4th participant was out of the question because >>>of time reasons. There was a dead line the Qualifier should end. So I gave >>>up on Rebel in favor of Tiger. The choice to favor Tiger was easy because >>>I consider Tiger clearly stronger than Rebel in comp-comp. Furthermore the >>>SMP Rebel has no autoplayer function (which was a demand) as it runs in a >>>simple text based interface (no graphics). >>> >>>Ed >>> >>> >>>>Therefore relying on the Ed Schroder - Rebel statement to query the press report >>>>"with many of the leading programs, such as Shredder and Rebel, refusing to >>>>play" is not justifiable. >>>> >>>>It is perfectly possible that Rebel 'refused' to play and that the press report >>>>is accurate. There is a thin line between not pursueing an entry and pulling it >>>>out as a withdrawal. >>> >>>I did not refuse to play. The situation was hectic and asked for fast >>>decisions and I did not want to create new obstacles. >>> >>>Ed > > > >Chris, > > >>Whoops, I missed that statement (you put in two signatures). > >Yes, saw it but then I already hit the submit button. > > >>Ok, you state you didn't refuse to play. > >Correct. Accepted. > > >>They say in the press report of the Telegraph that you did refuse, with Rebel. >> >>Confusing. > >You should ask the Telegraph, they did not get the information from me. The John >Herderson column states it correctly. > Malcolm Pein is not known for screwing up with his reports. He's both bright and sharp. If his column said "Rebel refused" which it did, he'll have got that direct from a press release, IMO. "refused" in your case is applying a very strong level of spin to events. "refused" as in "many of the leading progams" spins the net wider, presumably to Ferret and Crafty since their programmers said they wouldn't play on grounds of their 'Shredder only' policy. But since they weren't asked, "refused" is spin. Also, reading Hyatt's posts, he left the door open for a possibility of playing if the qualifier was fully open and properly organised - I interpreted his position as publicly holding the line for "Shredder only", but options open if majority went for an open qualifier. > > >>The press says one thing, you say another. Christophe says one thing, you say >>another. > >I have not seen any inconsistencies between Christophe and me. > I did. And I described them. Christophe has now clarified and states that his and your position is the same. Or, another way; he says your position that I described as 'Enrique blocking' rather than 'Enrique as messenger' is the real picture. > >>Meanwhile, Matthias (I assume) says that they only had to introduce BGN to CCC >>to see how programmers interact and behave, and BGN would instantly be grateful >>to deal with a professional organisation. > >If I had written nothing then I had received no information at all. > Correct. Although Matthias(?) was probably referring to the interactions in general, not just this specific case. >Ed > > >>A real mess.
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.