Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 15:32:31 02/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2002 at 15:10:50, Albert Silver wrote: >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 At the moment I posted these anelyses I was not able to use diagrams because there where no utiletys for it I agree that many of these posting where dificult to read I have done it myself but you realy have to look very good to folow the right track. Nevertheless that these postings are deleted is a big loss Or for me many wasted time. I have to make many of them all over again. When they are used for a product many times much critical lines are left out anyways. Or givven as clearly better at the moment they are not so clear. I also have to say that my noveltys always are new moves I am a big collector of games And before I start anelyzing I look at all plans wich where ever played in these positions take out the critical moments And start from there For that reason many plans will fail in depth And some will stay. Though it might be so that the right plan came from the one who lost. Who later on made a mistake. Or from a drawn game where oneside made a mistake so the result became diferent from what it should be. It is extremely dificult for programs to find in depth corect plans too And this has not changed in the last years. And as long as they are programmed in the way they are now they never will. (Most of my posting where made in 1997-1998 with rebel 10 anti GM on a 300Mhz Computer They still are corect with the new chess programs on a 2 GHz computer) I always hate it when I see come a computer program out of book already knowing he is goin to mess it up again. Or from I wich I do know the end result it was for this reason I posted all my anelyses here in the first place.) Though once in a while they do play perfect games But this is more an exeption then a rule. The game postion from the WC match Kramnik-Kasparov in the Grunfeld defence was fuly anelysed by me me and this also includeded the game it self but also the improvement Qc7 With the plan of e6 Rd8 And White can't play d5 anymore so White centre pawns become weak. Not to mention the Berin defense Also from this defense I posted a fuly anelyse (also to www.club Kasparov.ru) It also is for this reason I know (And not think)the WC was a setup!
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.