Author: Albert Silver
Date: 12:10:50 02/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2002 at 14:13:18, Marc van Hal wrote:
>On February 14, 2002 at 08:36:06, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On February 13, 2002 at 21:19:11, Tina Long wrote:
>>
>>>On February 13, 2002 at 11:00:56, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>Suspect? Motive? Crime? Cool! I hope I'm at least being profiled for something
>>>>absolutely dastardly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have it on very good authority that Albert has used opening moves in his chess
>>>games (including 3...Bg7) that were originally analysed & posted here by Marc.
>>>Albert does Not append his scoresheet with "Opening accredited to M van Hal".
>>>
>>>No wonder Marc has it in for him.
>>>
>>>Tina Long
>>>(Just stirring the Pot)
>>
>>Trust me Tina, the LAST thing he wants is to be accredited with the things I
>>play in the opening.
>>
>> Albert
>
>Well Tina is a litle bit on the right track
>(Though also she is kind of trolling.
>She asks questions where she already knows the anwers to.
>And if you tell this she will deny it.
>In fact this does not look to smart to me but ok.
>But it shows again the fact that many times wars started because of women
>
>(The most famous was Cleopatra.)
>
>Who later on complain that men always want to make war. )
>
>So are you I don't want a credit from your openingsmoves from move 3
>Not even from Kasparov!
>Only if so called noveltys are played which come from my hand.
We were only joking.
>
>OK now to The facts and mixing of things
>
>in the past you where one of the people who always kept on saying that I had too
>proof that postings I made where realy mine.
? I kept on saying you had to prove the postings were yours? Really, I have no
idea what you are referring to.
>Further about this mather
>At the moment some one brings out a product with my anelyses they get deleted
>from the CCC archives.
>
>
>(For the good folowers of my anelyses
>How many postings did I make over the Pirc?
>And how many can you find now
>Or the Kh1 variation of the queens gambit With Bf4!
>The move Qc7! instead of Qa5 in the Grunfeld defence played in the WC Match
>Kramnik-Kasparov
>The excange variation of the queens gambit.
>With a realy wild end.
>The Berlin defense
>The game van Welly FritzSSS Nk 2000
>Actualy all my finest work,to much to mention.)
> Being already punished for my good trust in humanety by the ICC webmaster?
>Or hackers.
>Coments from other people pointing at this realy eats out your heart.
>This is why I called you a troll.
>A good hearted human would not act in this way.
Look, I am sure your analyses are serious and thought out, but I seriously doubt
I had much to say about them if I ever did. With all due respect, I have often
found your lengthy posts to be confusing in their organization and presentation
and because of this I did not examine them very closely. If you had placed
diagrams at key points or made the layout easier to read, I might have, but I
got lost very quickly and desisted. No offense intended, Marc. As to others
borrowing your work, I have my doubts as to that also. Especially your reference
to the WC. Even if a novelty you found was also played in a WC game, there is
absolutely no reason to conclude this was taken from you. Finding a same idea is
not at all unusual and happens all the time. You may remember the Dely gambit
that Kasparov played in the WC against Karpov. Kasparov found the idea on his
own, though it was later discovered that a Hungarian IM by the name of Dely had
played it over 20 years before, but it was a coincidence nothing more.
Polugaevsky in the first volume of his masterpiece The Sicilian Labyrinth
describes a moment when Tal played a dangerous novelty against him in a
candidates match only to see him play very quickly and get the upper hand. The
reason was simply that the same idea had occured to Polugaevsky some time before
and he had already analyzed the move in depth.
>But I actualy started all this because of the mailbomb posting
>And the answers to it.
>Which where extremely agresive
>And I always want peel such apels.
>
>Later on mailbomb ,hacking
>I could conclude if you where on the page where you downloaded the mailbomb
>a hackers utilety and some documents on how to use them where not hard to find.
>Though you should be prety lucky if it worked at once the first time.
>At least this is how a policeoficer thinks.
Mailbomb?? What's a mailbomb? An e-mail with a virus attached to it? As to
hacker utilities, the most complicated hacking I ever did was to delete some
unwanted entries in my Windows Registry.
Peace,
Albert
>
>
>
>Friendly Greetings Marc
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.