Author: pavel
Date: 20:46:57 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2002 at 23:35:05, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 09, 2002 at 23:25:00, pavel wrote: > >>On January 09, 2002 at 20:00:19, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2002 at 18:10:33, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>> >>>>nothing agaist Ed but his site does NOT have secured transaction. kind of wierd >>>>considering it's 2002 & the potential for abuse abounds out there >>> >>>Okay, after the xx times the issue has come up again, I will bite this time... >>> >>>There is no abuse and I will tell you why I will leave things as they are >>>although I fear it will be not satisfying or convincing for all but let me start >>>with 2 firm statements: >>> >>>1) These so-called "secured transactions" are a farce. >>> >>>2) Believe it or not, my way of accepting orders is much safer than the >>>so-called "secured transactions". >>> >>>Why? >>> >>>First of all you need to understand how an order on the Rebel page works, that >>>is, you type the required info and then submit. From the information an email is >>>created and directly send to my server all in a split of a second. My provider >>>daily handles over 2 million emails. >>> >>>Now a hacker NEVER is going to search in million of emails, that is insane and >>>total non productive. The volume of emails is a guarantee for that. >>> >>>No, hackers focus on those sites (protocols) where the REAL money is, the SAME >>>companies who have introduced the "secured transactions". Millions of people >>>daily order on-line via those companies, a real goldmine if the hacker is able >>>to hack the protocol, tens of thousands of CC numbers are on the street. >>> >>>And how many times have you read such stories in the news? >>> >>>Too much I would say. >>> >>>Now since 1995 I am accepting on-line orders, no single case of fraud or hacking >>>has taken place. All of this (as described above) has made me decide to stick to >>>my way, because it is better. >>> >>>Futhermore my order page offers you (in case you still have doubts) to order by >>>fax, I also provide a link to other companies who do support "secured >>>transactions". >>> >>>Ed >> >> >> >>I agree that those so-called secured trasaction are not that secured and are >>more prone to hacks. But your way is nothing better either. But considering the >>alternative, I would stick to your way of trading, because it's less >>conventioanl. >> >>by the way, good luck on rebel century. >>You just gave me a reason to buy rebel century and rebel tiger (too). >>Pls, just dont port it under chessbase interface. ;) >> >>pavs > >On the contrary, I suggest the ACCP (Averno's Chess Communication Protocol) >recently described in the winboard forum by Jose Carlos (author of Averno) >to link a winboard engine to the Chessbase GUI. It work flawlessly like >a charm. It does what it is supposed to do and you will never have a complain >that Rebel is working with decreased strength. That's guaranteed. > >Rebel will be WB protocol II? > >Miguel >ACCP fan, I think that one day I will implement it in Gaviota, my poor engine. >PS: If rebel is going to be a WB engine, it will probably be the first >engine I will buy. Is it like a adapter you use seperately from the engine, or you have to port it on your engine? Sounds good. Does that mean I can finally test Yace against Fritz 7 under fritz interface? yey! pavs.;)
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.