Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 01:39:12 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 01:14:17, Mike S. wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 21:02:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 22, 2003 at 20:50:32, Axel Schumacher wrote: >> >>>And again you did not mention (intentionally, of course) that Johnny DID NOT >>>claimed the draw. The GUI, (which is independent of the engine) announced a >>>draw. (...) > >>(...) But let's see what you said about the innocence of the Jonny operator. You claim >>that the GUI did NOT claim the draw properly. I disagree. >> >>The pop-up of the window says: [Levy quote] "info!" To whom? To the operator! >>Then "3-fold-repetition!" > >But not "I claim draw..." "MS" again, the spin-doctor arguing for ChessBase. Hi Mike! This is a case you will lose, my dear friend. Promissed. To make directly the appropriate statement: it was very dishonest by ChessBase team of FRITZ to tolerate the result out of 1) the violation of the rules by Jonny author Zwanzger and 2) the violations of the rules by TD Jaap vd Herik and the nonsense decisions of the TD board of the ICGA later on. Likewise I say that I am happy that finally someone out of the CSS/ ChessBase surrounding showed up. Until now we had only defenses from very uneducated people. With your message now you've proven that the case is completely lost for the ICGA TD board and hence for the whole ICGA officials as such. Including David Levy. You know that we in Grman have the expression 'Wortklauberei' for the above. Hair-splitting in English which does not exactly say the same. Wort-klauberei is much better to express ones disdain of this evil method of confusing and cheating. To make directly the strongest argument against your Wortklauberei: "I asked you to quote a specific rule that says that a pop-up window that must be dismissed before the game can continue does _not_ constitute a valid demand for a draw by repetition to be relayed to the TD. You have _never_ responded to that. I assume you never will, since there is no such requirement given in any rule book I have _ever_ seen." (quoted from Bob Hyatt in http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?337763) I'm waiting now for the answer! I'm still waiting. But I won't hold my breath because there won't be an answer for certain! Because there _is_ none. What you are insinuating doesn't exist. > >>At that moment Zwanzger was forced to stop the clocks and call the arbiter etx >>pp. He then had shown the situation, the intended move etc. Jaap would have >>agreed to the draw. With his crime Zwanzger cause a little confusion in Jaap who >>then agreed to play on which was wriong etc pp. > >Zwanzger did not want to claim the draw, he wanted to ask if it's ok to >*continue* in the given situation. He has explained that en detail in the CSS >Forum. This is firsthand information: > >http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/84889.htm Also this is a nice spin-doctor cheat. That _something_ has been talked over in a forum does _not_ constitute reality of the implied insinuations. Also - that Zwanzger wanted to continue does _not_ constitute a reason for the claim that the GUI message had no exact order content. In fact Zwanzger violated the rules of computerchess which are clear. You admit it ans still claim that this had been his right because the pop-up had no stringence whatsoever for the passive operator??? You know exactly that Johannes mainly claimed in CSS that he had good intentions. But this is wrong. And such a personal claim doesn't change the evil of a wrong-doing in one single iota. As I've shown his 'moving' and then hoping that the draw could be prevented is a clear cheat. And he had no good intentions because he knew that as a master chessplayer. You can well burn his reputation further but I don't see why you should do this. This case is lost, Mike. And the faster you accept it and repair the damage that has been done, I mean 'you' ChessBase, the better this is for the future of this new author in computerchess. Period. But don't do it in the usual cynism. Which would argue like this: we let the people refreign in their anger because we can hope that the don't want to harm the young man's reputation for the future and by doing so we can likewise expect that the same people finally tolerate our little crime in the aftermath of the Zwanzger violations. In fact we, ChessBase team of FRITZ, we told the TD _before_ the decision that 'we' wouldn't protest against a pro-Shredder decision. This is pure cynism because of course Fritz had all the commercial benefit through the Kasparov event and a title in Graz wouldn't increase the PR results. But a title for Shredder would certainly help Shredder which is also a ChessBase program. > >>>First of all the Jonny program behaved properly according to the rules of FIDE >>>that allegedly [see Billings] were used in Graz. Jonny didn't announce his >>>move!!!! Because that would have forced the operator to make that move!!! Jonny >>>instead announced that he saw a 3-fold rep. Then the operator had to close the >>>window with the message. He then had to stop the clocks and then he should have >>>told the TD that he now had a move that led to the 3-fold rep. > >He wanted to continue the game, not claim the draw. So all of that was *not* >necessary. Pardon me! Of course this was neccessary because Zwanzger had no rights whatsoever to 'want' something else since his machine told him to draw. > >>>But Jonny operator Zwanzger did something very dishonest. He ignored the 3-fold >>>repetition [FIDE version!!! as apllied in Graz] and he moved the displayed move! > >A pop-up info pointing to the repetition, is not a clear draw claim. It could be >called ambigous. Btw. it came from the GUI (ChessBase GUI! :-)), not from the >real competitor the Jonny engine itself AFAIK. The GUI can be seen as a >communication tool, not as a part of the competitor - in this case even more, >being used to run a non-chessbase engine. Blabla. Spin-doctor latin. It has been shown beyond reasonable doubts that the GUI & engine belong together once the pair had been defined for an event. Period. > >A different thing would have been, if a clear unambigous message from the engine >itself would have appeared. The Fritz GUI offers an option to display a window >for engine output (in addition to the normal engine window), which could have >displayed this theoretically. I don't know if Jonny could have supported that. I >think this additional window is only seldomly used, and virtually unknown. - Or >maybe some engine devolopers use it, and only the users never do or don't >mention it, I don't know. But it exists (I used it once to display additional >Nimzo 8 infos). As always, Mike, thanks for all the informations, this is always the good side in your postings. But it doesn't quite balance the evil from your spin doctor's hot air product placement. ;) > >>>But at that moment the draw was destoyed according to the FIDE rules and >>>Zwanzger knew it 100% as a tournament player in FIDE tournament chess!!!! >>>There is absolutely no doubt. > >This is no crime :-) IMO in computerchess, the programs (and/or their operators >respectively) should have *the same freedom to claim or not to claim* a >repetition draw, just like the FIDE rules allow it, too. The Jonny engine said >nothing (couldn't I guess), Zwanzger didn't want the draw and didn't claim the >draw. Nope they shouldn't because then the operator would be no longer passive. And then you are now also going that low, in the same tradition of the crime of Zwanzger, that you refuse a draw and want to continue just to lose because the position is completely lost for you. That is most dishonest, Mike! But perhaps your chess is not good enough that you could understand what the crime is exactly all about. Yes, Mike, hint: chess has something to do with honour and dignity. All the cheats, you are so liking, in show events are most dishonest. Yes, Mike. Throwing games or refusing to win a just started game with advantages for your side is most dishonest, yes, Mike! I know that you are running here for the opposite. For you Kasparov is a honorable man. Like David Levy and Jaap vd Herik. Yes, because ChessBase always has the say. As if, Mike, it would go after the principle ''who has the money, he should decide what to do...'' All very dishonest, Mike. Also, why should JUNIOR author Amir Ban protest against the TD decisions if the next tournament is held in Israel in 6 months already!? 'Entscheidend ist immer, was hinten dabei rauskommt, nicht wahr, Mike!?' Oder 'Eine Hand wäscht die andere.' > >>>Zwanzger simply violated the rules. He moved against the will of the machine and >>>so destroyed the machines little triumph of a draw in a completely lost >>>position. > >No, because "the machine" didn't express a clear unambigous will to claim the >draw. > >I think, chess programs should handle that more clearly in the future, to avoid >such misunderstandings. It is most dishonest to imply that the situation was unclear and that therefore Zwanzger was confused and wanted to throw the game. What he did was his intention! He wanted to support Shredder! And this is a crime for an operator. > >(What the "real" behaviour of the Fritz GUI is in such a case, should be checked >in the so called serious rating game mode rather than in the normal mode, but I >guess it would not be very easy to create a comparable situation by gameplay >only, to test that :-)) Isn't it funny?! No matter what the news will bring we spin-doctors always have something to do.... :)))) > >Shredder had virtually won the game before, reaching a won position. Then >occured the repetion bug (IIRC, even during an announced mate sequenence!). > >I would have claimed it though, and Fritz would be Champion (for a change), but >OTOH it would have been "somewhat brutal" to draw like that when the opponent >already had announced mate before the bug occured. It's really better when these >things are handled by the engines themselves, so the operators and programmers >don't have to meet difficult decisions against each other in such extreme >situations. Either Shredder or Fritz would have got a somewhat unfair 0.5 point >disadvantage from their subjective viewpoint, no matter what Zwanzger would have >done. > >You could have interpreted as a scandal as well, when a ChessBase GUI used by an >amateur, would have decided that Fritz would be Champion by forcing a draw claim >that the programmer didn't even want! :-)) How funny, Mike. You're really very nice to my unsatisfied wish for pompous exhibitions. NOt, Mike!! You can't imply that we are all so rotten perverted as to play yoyo with the rules and the tradition of so many brilliant fore-fathers. It is wrong to believe in the tune 'Money money makes the world go round...'! You must not confuse your own 'Beliebigkeitswahn' with what decent people hold up for their ideals and the truth. You know what I mean?????! > >>>According to the computerchess traditions he should have ordered to take back >>>the played moves after the message in the pop-up window. Then the game would >>>have been a draw (part two). > >Traditions are not rules, only rules are rule. > >(Often, rules are easier to adapt than traditions, but only when competent >people are in power to do so.) Yes, competent and decent, that is all-over so important. I agree, Mike. > >But when engines can decide and handle that autonomous (which I think would be >preferable), like it's in the usual engine matches too, this game would have >ended in a draw due to that bug, not reflecting the true engine performances >before. Yes, Mike. That is the same with me. With my past record I would be the right man to be President of the new IC...A because I am NOT involved in the corrupted money dances. Yes! ;) Mike, I would never eat Hamburger for 99 US $$ the piece like Levy&Friedel... Just to ask you a question, Mike. Do you know why Friedel is so suicidal that he always makes such suicidal reports so that everybody knows how evil the business is running? Note that I refreign from all political propaganda. > >Before that situation, Zwanzger had asked the TD to be allowed to resign (I >didn't know that this is required, I guess due to a specific ICGA rule), but was >told to continue a bit, to make the position more clear. > >So, your conclusions are really wrong, no cheat, no crime :-)) > >The real scandal was the other thing The 'other thing'? You mean the other thing? Uhm, yeah. Very evil, Mike. >(and I guess we mostly, or partially agree >about that much more serious incident), which among other things brings me to >the question, if the ICGA officials are put into power by elections among the >ICGA members, or what kind of democracy exists within that organisation at all. By all means ROTFL! You mean if Friedel&Levy have a couple of private email exchanges [like already for Jakarta in 96] we can't call it a democracy?????? Are you serious, Mike? Of course it's democracy. This is called basics democracy!! From the base of us. And you can be certain that the two do it all for us not for themselves!!!!! This is called representative democracy, Mike! And we have also a clear media democracy because the media report always if the two eat Hamburgers for 99 US $$ a piece. So we have a complete openess in the policy of the two from our basics democracy. Any more questions so far? > >It was disgusting, and I say shame on everybody who caused that or supported >that. Thank god I could see in the message boards, that there are a number of >people who share this view, including some big calibres. I just wonder how that >affects ICGA standards and personnel. I don't think they read computerchess >message boards. If they would do regularly, than they could probably judge much >better which suspicion is founded, and which is just an unscrupulous attempt to >misuse incompetence (it worked perfectly). You mean that the two demeocratic Uncles misused you too for writing such messages into the International Community? I thought that you were working for them. Uhm. I see. You mean you are three? Rolf > >Regards, >Mike Scheidl
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.