Only Chess
06 Mar 08
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by wormwoodThank you for the citation. It definitely supports the idea that computers are used as assistance.
try harder, it took me less than 15 seconds.
http://amici.iccf.com/issues/Issue_07/issue_07_ivar_bern_part_1.html
You said earlier that pre-computer era CC masters had been tested and all had passed. Which masters did you test?
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitI agree you don't need state of the art computer to go through a DB, but you do need one for analysis after your games so you can prepare for the next time you meet that variation. I was hoping that's what Berliner meant by that. Does the ICCF actually allow computer use, or do they just say, "look, you're not supposed to use a computer, but we can't prove who is and who isn't, so we're just throwing our hands up and surrendering." One difference between that and RHP is that RHP is still trying their hardest to fairly enforce their Terms of Service.
I think it is. You don't need a state of the art computer just to cull through a database. You do need one if you're going to beat the engines the others players are using.
Edit: I mean, what's the point of even talking about 'admitting' computer use when ICCF allows it?! Yeah, next I'll "admit" to flagging people over-the-board in dead lost positions.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by Doctor Rat
I agree you don't need state of the art computer to go through a DB, but you do need one for analysis after your games so you can prepare for the next time you meet that variation. I was hoping that's what Berliner meant by that. Does the ICCF actually allow computer use, or do they just say, "look, you're not supposed to use a computer, but we can't pro ...[text shortened]... RHP is that RHP is still trying their hardest to fairly enforce their Terms of Service.
ICCF (International): The main international cc organization International Correspondence Chess Federation is silent on this issue, but consultation with rules experts confirms that it is legal to use computers in any form to assist in making moves.
-J. Franklin Campbell
http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a050531.htm
Even for opening analysis, I would still contend that a state-of-the-art machine is not needed. Like the Ivar Bern article mentioned, he mainly uses the blunder-check feature during opening analysis. In openings like the KID, the computer is largely helpless anyway.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
11 Mar 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't intend to say anything more about cludi until his case has been properly resolved by the new Game Mods.
I'm certainly not going to comment on the content of a private message that I sent to a third party, especially as I did not give my permission for its contents to be passed on to anyone, or published on an external website.
11 Mar 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedYes, clearly it's David's fault that the 2007 Champion hasn't been crowned yet (even though it finished a couple of months ago) & the "winner" is in self-imposed exile after the game moderation team he was a member of was disbanded!
11 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by tomtom2321) No. Define your dull, please. If that is meant as a personal attack, it can only mean that you must have some hidden anger or "issues", if you are questioning the validity of my statements, or perhaps wish to re-interpret my statement, perhaps you could bee more direct or clear, or something. But your gutless ad hominem is irrelevant, it was hard not to ignore the rest of your "tempermental" post. You want dull, just look in the mirror.
1) Are you dull?
2) Reactions are BASED off of consequences...we way the good and the bad and then decide what we want to do.
3) EDIT: Where can you quote me as saying that he is innocent?
2) And reactions are also based upon previous actions, it is obvious his whiny and gutless "gee whiz guys, i'm innocent honest! but i'm leaving anyway" posts are meant as nothing more than a silly device to prop up his ego and deflect any question of guilt. Errr... what was the real reason to compare his computer engine ratio to the games of Tal? his own homebrew of game analysis statistics point to his guilt. And there are bigger issues and i won't bother to enumerate with them here. A reasonable person would not have exited this site with such fanfare, bad karma and the generation of gutless and unprovoked accusations. i for one cannot imagine stooping to such childish insensitivity and redundant slop.
3) Then you must admit that it is at least equally probable that either he did or did not cheat, and his running away leaving far too many question unanswered, meanwhile maintaining his innocence is questionable at best, in my mind points directly to the truth of the allegations as raised by another hightly rated player at this site. Your catch-22 wordplay sucks rotten pineapples, that You may not have said it directly, but you're constant off-topic ruminations and questionable retorts/hollow endoresements can only lead a reasonable person to assume that you are playing the devils avocado here. That is in effect seeking resolution by declaring that "the former game mod that shall not be mentioned" left of his own accord, and, this is the tricky part, also found it convenient to do so, "courageously" posted such juvenile slop and selfish self-centered self-effacing personal attacks, from the safety of his own blog, of course. In effect playing the role of the schoolyard bully, while proclaiming his innocence, to the bitter end. Mostly to hide the obvious and glaring discrepencies that do exist here. Tell me you understand dahrlink. Oh and another thing; "The former game mod that shill not be mentioned" is equally guilty of fanning the flames of derision, and is responsible for the open question of his guilt and/or honesty in this manner. His myopic insights and "top-heavy" analyses and generation of ultimately useless game statistics have sealed his own fate.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by KeplerClose but no cigar. But he is not automatically innocent of performing the deed, in question. Your useless comparison notwithstanding, your "determination" of innocence is compleatly seperate from whether or not he actually used a chess engine in apparently several games, whether or not he actually performed this act.
He is automatically innocent until pronounced guilty. I say pronounced because this is not a court of law. The "defendant" is not even allowed into the "courtroom" in this case so it doesn't matter whether they are here or not.
This evidence that people keep on about. I have been told there is "overwhelming evidence" and now we have "a mountain of evidence ...[text shortened]... see it? Have you seen it? I strongly suspect the answer to those three questions is NO!
