Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 05:27:31 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Rolf, >>> Bob Hyatt made the neccessary comments. But as it seems nobody listens or >>> wants to listen. >> I haven't seen it - I do not follow every discussion at CCC -> thats simply >> to much to read each day... > But this is an easy one. Just download yourself the archives and search it > with Andreas prog. Offline Reader. BTW Bob did NOT say that the exclusion > after no answer came in, was absolutely impossible. This is not the problem. > The problem is the handling of the case during tournament and then 3 rounds > before the end. THIS is impossible how they handled it. And you were on > board. No protest??? There was one team that did protest, by the way... you may guess - I will not tell you... :) Anyway, the discussion here was only about when is showed evidence strong enough to complain ? And if the ICGA should take a look a bit closer on the participant then... Noone was discussing about how they did handle it afterwards yet in this thread... It might have been better not to count the results of List at all or to count them all as 1-0 or whatever... I did not think to much about it... should I ? I am not an experienced TD... I have no idea how that is handled at human chess tourneys... But do you think the List team would have played on after being disqualified ? I doubt it... >>>> It was neither weak nor pseudo ! For programmers it was enough to get >>>> suspicious. >>> But it was so weak that the one who brought up these suspicions is still >>> anonymously hiding. Why? If the case is so clear? >> It is his decision... I understand this -> he has not done anything wrong - >> he did feel uncomfortable with one of the participants and ask the TD how >> to handle this... What else should he do ? >> And now he does hide - the reason is also simple: He does not want to get >> kicked ass from persons like you... for not having done anything wrong - at >> least from my point of view... > Dear Thomas, I can tell you what he should do in case of such uncomfort! He > should seek the help of a psychologist like me. Nonsense - at least not seeking someone like you -> else he really would get ill... :) Okay, let's look at it this way: You think that someone is cheating in the tourney. What to do ? You think that you have some proof for it. What to do ? Forget about it ? Still you have not shown any alternative at all how such things should be handled in the future... So come on - be creative now at least once ! >>>> Of course it is unsure what a professional would do in such a situation - >>>> well, so far it did not happen... (Maybe I am wrong and Bob can tell us >>>> some story's from history) >>> Thomas, this is indecent. And I tell you why. Because Bob already made >>> things clear enough but you and the ICGA won't listen. >> Where ? As I already said - I did not read everything here... I simply >> can't... so show me please ! > Again the Search also ONLINE available is fantastic. You really should do > that. sorry, at least give me a point why I should do so... what such outstanding news will I find there ? Is it worth the effort ? > I can only tell you that this problem of clones is well a real problem but it > must be solved in a different way. I will write a message later. But one > thing is clear. You will always only LATER make your decisions. Not on a fly. And when the author does not want to cooperate at all ? At least does not show any will to cooperate ? So you will accept that maybe someone will get champion and later on you must take the title again away from him... And during the tournament everybody knows that the TD is suspicious about the competitor ? You really think that this is a good decision ? That all those dopers at olympics with 1st place is a good way to handle it ? To steel those honest athlets the title they would get ? You know also very well that getting the title after such a scandal is not nearly worth as much as it would be to get it immediately. The dopers have all the publicity, all the pictures... nobody will ever really realize that another one has won... And that is good for you ? Sorry, I can't understand this... >>Who is JC by the way ? > I thought you had understood the typo. I see only you three who must be sauer > like Sauermilk, Quark, Sjeng and Diep. :)) sorry, I am not annoyed... not at all... I doubt it also for the programmer of Sjeng... besides, I never was annoyed when someones engine get better then Quark... I am happy together with the programmers when they make progress - of course I try to improve myself also - it's a steady friendly competition between amateur programmers and common sense in the winboard forum... I am very happy that the known number of amateur programs did rise so much in the past. And of course the quality did rise also - we have now around 30 or even 40 programs that are not too far away in strength from the commercials... maybe one of them will be the new Richard Lang... maybe it is Fritz Reul... I would be happy with him either ! Or look at Ruffian: it is great that something new and so strong is around in the scene... our old heros will get older and older and retire from the business - I have no fear that enough young talented programmers will fill the holes with new and interesting programs and ideas. Anyway, it still does not answer my question - who is JC ? I know only one programmer that has this initials, José Carlos - and I really wonder what he has to do with this ??? You insist here envy or jealousy where none is... Greets, Thomas
This page took 0.42 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.