Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:39:04 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2004 at 06:56:52, CLiebert wrote: >On January 28, 2004 at 19:57:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 28, 2004 at 18:18:07, CLiebert wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2004 at 12:22:05, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>On January 28, 2004 at 07:20:32, Mike S. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 27, 2004 at 22:55:22, Thomas Mayer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>(...) What should they have done ? >>>>> >>>>>Take a couple of balanced normal positions with a variety of plausible >>>>>continuations, download Crafty, and simply run List & Crafty in these positions. >>>>>Then compare the engine output each, BEFORE DISQUALIFYING SOMEBODY ONLY BASED ON >>>>>SUSPICION WITHOUT A PROOF. >>>> >>>>Unfortunately, things are not that simple. >>>>Changing a few parameters in the evaluation module, adding a few tactical >>>>extensions to the search will easily produce a very different play. >>>> >>> >>>Different ja, aber nicht viel viel stärker!!! >>> >>> >>> >>>Die entscheidende Frage in der ganzen Diskussion ist wann man von einem Clone >>>spricht und wann von einer eigenen Schöpfung. Was darf "importiert" werden was >>>ist unzulässig (zB. HT-, TB-Technik, Zeitalgos, ... ). >>>Hier wird zu wenig differenziert. Wenn jemand ein Architektenhaus baut und >>>fertige standardisierte Teile wie Schlösser, Küchenplatten, Fenstergitter, >>>Fliessen etc. verwendet ist dann das gesamte Haus plötzlich nicht mehr ein >>>eigenständiges Werk oder doch?! >>> >>>Auf der ICGA herumzuhacken mag naheliegen, ist aber zu billig und geht am Thema >>>vorbei - es sei denn es geht ums hacken ;-) >>>Sie konnte nach den Regularien wie sie nun mal sind kaum anders handeln, das mag >>>man nicht gut finden, aber es war legitim. Thanks for the answer. I continue in English so that the readers in CCC also have a chance to understand. My objection was mainly based on your insinuation as if the ICGA was forced to act like they did. But Mike S. told us that IF the ICGA had done their homework and created crystal clear rules in regard of source code THEN also Fritz R. would have had a chance in advance to prepare something in case of questions. This is a critic you completely forget. And from this point back to what you wrote here, there is my critic against you that you did NOT argue like a close person to Fritz R. Because in that case you would have taken the slightest arguments which can defend him. Instead you come with the verdict that ICGA was forced. This is incorrect. Since innocent until proven guilty is the rule, it cannot be that someone is taken in such a bind during his examination unless you want to disturb him or worse, harm him. This is an incredible crime IMO. Ok, no blood on the floor, but a crime in respect of the ethical questions behind the surface. If you consider such question as low, then of course I no longer have a case. But I thought you were a close relation to Fritz R.! >>>Welche Interessen und welches Wissen diejenigen hatten oder haben wollten die >>>die ICGA in diesen Entscheidungsnotstand brachten ist die weitaus interessantere >>>Frage - aber was solls es ist alles zigfach gesagt dazu, die WM ist vorbei, und >>>die Dinge gehen ihren Gang... >> >> >>Irgendwas stimmt hier nicht ganz, höflich ausgedrückt. Erst warst du es doch, >>der angeblich engen Kontakt mit Fritz hatte. Telefonisch. Stundenlang. > > >C: Nicht stundenlang, vielleicht 2 x 20-30 Min. I read somewhere about hour long telephone call. My memory is absolute in that regard. But of course it's secondary if it was really 1 hour or less. Nevertheless you are one of very few who could talk to him. All I wanted to know is if he's ok and doing well. You should know that. I was NOT fantasising from the length to the content of such a call. A second question could be if he had probably innocently done something he could have avoided if he were better informed? I mean the mentioning of something in advance... > > >Dann hast du dich mit anderen darüber lustig gemacht, daß LIST für einen Clone >gehalten wird. > > >C: Bitte?? Lustig gemacht? Ich habe die Argumente die vorhanden sein könnten >zusammengetragen und bewertet. Bitte Quelle zeigen wenn Du sowas behauptest. Yes. I could give you the wuotes. Please just listen to what you have written shortly after the debate began. Read CSS and your webpage. Of course this is my interpretation. But what I read was that you were completely sure that Fritz R. didn't cheat. You stated that LIST couldn't be CRAFTY. And that such an insinuation would be incredible and such such. Just look at your own messages. I've read them. But is this really a big deal? Were you convinced that Fritz was kosher or not? If yes, what is your point now? Just read your messages. BTW you were the most important witness for me because you had talked to him on the phone. And you still defended him. So that was proof enough for me in favour of Fritz R. Where is the problem now for you? I'm not insinuationg something bad against you. To the contrary! > > > >Du standest auf Fritz' Seite in allem was ich lesen konnte, deine Seite >und CSS Forum. > >C: Ja. Das tue ich auch noch. Das ändert aber nichts daran das ich die Dinge >versuche objektiv zu beurteilen. I see now. Yes, if you want to be objective, which is ok, then please do also take into account what Scheidl wrote. The ICGA did NOT provide good rules in advance. Do you deny that? - But it was Mike, not me, so it would be a debate between you two, not me involved. What I said was basically that you cannot, by all means you can't, write it how you did. Objectivity can't lead you to a defense of ICGA that makes Fritz, yxour friend, guilty. This is what I wanted to say. And you want to object? > > > >Und hier interessiert dich jetzt nur das Rumgehacke auf ICGA, die kaum anders >hätten handeln können, die in einem Notstand gewesen seien? > >C: Ja, und?! Wie hätten sie denn nach den Statuten anders handeln können?! Sie >hätten die Engine weiterspielen lassen können ggf. außer Wertung und danach die >Dinge klären können, ja! Mehr Fingerspitzengefühl kann man vorwerfen. Aber sie >konnten auch so handeln wie sie gehandelt haben, das ist gerechtfertigt formal. You are right. Understood that they are not a very sensitive body, then they could handle the case this way. But Bob Hyatt explained why it was wrong if you take the situation in the tournament. It was odd to exclude LIST three rounds before the end. You understand? >Auch wenn ich das nicht gut finde. Aber, lieber Rolf, es geht nicht immer danach >was man selber gut findet... All ok, but from a friend of Fritz R. I would have expected at least the mention of a little critic against ICGA and not the overall praising the inevitable. Know what I mean? - Exactly there you have also my critic of a possible context with the policy of the company ChessBase. NOT because you get orders in a direct channel. Who said that? You always defend yourself against such allegations. But who was so stupid to assume this? Anyway. From a friend I expect more defense than what you had written here in CCC and that is what was the base of my critic against you. It might well be that earlier you had made clear that you basically still believed Fritz. Even me cannot have all the record always by heart. Excuse me. ;) > > > >NICHTS, >absolut NICHTS pro Fritz Reul. Und jetzt Parole Augen zu und durch. Ich spüre >nichts mehr von Solidarität mit Fritz Reul. > >C: Ich habe meine Meinung dazu sehr ausführlich dargelegt und das gilt auch >noch. Aber ich muß das nicht bei jeder Gelegenheit wiederholen um es >irgendjemanden zu beweisen... Damned, if you defend ICGA who just killed your friend then I would expect this. Just this with a little mention. Not long but visible enough. Period. > > >> >>Wie geht das? Wie kommt man zu einer solchen Meinung? Oder war das jetzt hier >>nur eine Seite der Medaille und der Rest steht woanders? >> >>Oder ist das jetzt die Linie von ChessBase? > >C: So das ist ein Punkt wo ich ansonsten vielleicht eine mögliche Diskussion >beende. UNterstellungen mag ich nicht. Eine Linie von Chessbase wie Du es nennst >gibt es nicht und wenn es sie gäbe würde sie mich nicht interessieren! CB hat >mir nichts vorzugeben und will es auch nicht. But Christian, I didn't insinuate that you just were a sort of proxy for ChessBase. What I wrote was a question. And that this question is reasonable and allowed you should accept. The way you react is however leading to suspicions. Everybody on the Globe knows that Chessbase and CSS are NOT exactly to seperated fields. CSS deals with the topics that only ChessBase can create in the first place. It is NOT that I want to equalize the two companies! Never said that. But we can say that Frederic plays a role in both companies, no?! Yes or no! > > > >>Fragen über Fragen. Aber die sollen jetzt unterdrückt werden? >> > >C: Ja, genau - alles soll unterdrückt, getuschelt und gemauschelt werden, >überalle wird bestochen, gekauft und gemogelt ;-)) wie immer... it is a bad >world. This is your insinuation against critics like me. Why do you do that? Was my point of a defense for Fritz R. so outlandish for you?? Thanks again and all the best, Rolf > > >Chr.
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.