Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:32:16 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 11:13:52, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Rolf, > >[I snip your nonsense because you simply does not want to understand] > >But I may add that one of the rule is that if something is not declared in the >rules FIDE rules will be taken... Thats the point how the TD explains his >decision... But the passivity "rule" means what? Did Zwanzger violate that rule? With the bad intention to avoid that rule and hence he cheated. It's so simple. > >Of course I do not agree with it - I think that the correct result should be a >draw... anyway there is no point where we can claim Johannes as a cheater - he >made an understandable mistake - and I am quite sure that Bob understands this >also. And I agree with Bob that the TD decision about that game was not correct. So here we agree completely, thanks. But now my nerving question: why did you not oppose the decision? Why did you tolerate that Amir did the same??? Why did you tolerate that ChessBase-Fritz refused to appeal? >But according to the posting of Bob, I thought he was not aware of some facts at >the tourney site, so I want to provide them to him. > >Correct decision of TD should have been: Declare the game as draw and inform >Johannes that his decision was not correct. Period. No, you can't say that, we will become friends in the end, no, please refuse to say that, please. :) > >> Thomas, with a growing distance to the event I would expect that you could be >> more relaxed and objective. In every word you say I can smell that you are >> still caught in the mixture out of friendship and excitement about the >> details in chess and all that. As I said. For me you are the good exception >> who always gives us good reports. But in case of dissents you should be a >> better learner. Or do you think that your conditions are so totally >> different to the ones Bob had 30 years ago??? So, it is beyond my >> understanding why you treat him with so little respect. He WAS there, has >> DONE what you are doing today. And BTW he won a couple of titles. It would >> please me if you, and all others, could give him the respect he deserves. > >I did not treat him in any way... I just gave him some more facts which I >thought he does not know yet - because the ICGA-press-release is not everything >that was discussed in Graz... so far we had a quite friendly discussion. He told >me that he does not think that explanation by the ICGA is sound and I want to >explain why it could be seen as sound... -> What would have happened if nobody >informs anyone that the info-window was shown on Jonny's comp ? I dont get this. You mean all you authors could cooperate in a mafia-like mutual understanding and kill all evidence of such cheats just to exploit the money from the sponsors??? > >But it was definitely clear that as soon as you are involved in this (or any) >discussion this will get chaotic... Excuse me for the many dimensions I brought in. It is a difficult task to think properly, that's true. All the funny justifications from Graz vanished in the analytical mill of some few academics. BTW also Thorsten C. is in the same boat, so nothing with too difficult. To be honest you must not be academic by all means. > >Rolf, when you are in any elite like you declare yourself in CTF then you belong >to the elite in getting on somebodys nerves... That is the only thing you are >good at ! I doubt it but perhaps I can help you in your understanding what I meant because I can see that you completely misunderstood what I meant. There are many elites in a country. Certainly academics belong to some elites. What you perhaps mean if someone behaves as "elitarian" as if he had extra rights or God-sent enlightments. All that is nonsense of course. I use the term in a sociological meaning. Nothing else. In elites a people doesn't have only academics. So don't worry. > >Greets, Thomas > >P.S.: To Cheat always implies that someone has some bad thoughts in mind... >Johannes definitely has not. He has! Although he knows the chess rule of the 3-fold and patt the like, he doesn't want to accept these rules in case of Shredder's "bug". Here you prove that you are not familiar with such elaborations because your definition of bad thoughts is NOT neccessarily the only one. But because you think Zwanzger didn't have yours he had nothing at all in mind. How do you know? Look, I don't continue this if you refuse to discuss the main point. In manipulating with deliberate snips you already got all the Gold Medals available. I have a too good memory and you're not yet in the same league like Elvis who had some extra rights to make mistakes. Elvis, if you read that, I hope you are doing well... and keep on rocking. Rolf >So you can't call him a cheater at all. But as I >said above, your main interest is to get on somebodys nerves - as usual you did >a good job... congratulations.
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.