Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:09:23 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 05:06:13, Larry Proffer wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 19:21:22, Bruce Moreland 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 >>>> >>> >>>Whoops, I missed that statement (you put in two signatures). >>> >>>Ok, you state you didn't refuse to play. >>> >>>They say in the press report of the Telegraph that you did refuse, with Rebel. >>> >>>Confusing. >>> >>>The press says one thing, you say another. Christophe says one thing, you say >>>another. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>A real mess. >> >>If you've ever had any personal dealings with the press, you will understand >>that they screw up on the details almost all the time, and they screw up on the >>major stuff quite a bit of the time. Especially when the situation is remotely >>complicated, technical, or controversial. >> >>If you are still insinuating that Ed is lying, because of what the article in >>the paper says, that's crap. > >I'm not insinuating anything of the sort, neither now nor before as your 'still' >suggests. > >There are trap-doors in front of your path. The labels on the doors say "put the >worst possible interpretation on whatever your enemies do". You keep falling >through the traps. Each time you end in the same pit. The pit goes nowhere at >all, and it gets more and more difficult to climb out of it each time. You can >suit yourself of course, its not for me to advise you. It's a fair reaction given your history of insinuations of deceit at every opportunity. bruce
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.