| |
Main
Date: 27 Apr 2006 10:31:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
You wouldn't believe the advantage this gives those players who have figured
out how to do this, LEGALLY.
I'm not talking about freestyle or online tournaments either, but regular,
OTB matches under the auspices of FIDE or USCF.
You only think you're playing a chessplayer, but these days you just might
find yourself paired against...THE BORG!
Pay attention, folks: this is PERFECTLY LEGAL and there is NOTHING that any
chess federation can do to stop it!
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 07:50:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
> Therefore, "Chess One" considers Bobby to be a "weak player".
Well, Fischer never was a Nearly an IM...
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 21:56:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>>
>> Therefore, "Chess One" considers Bobby to be a "weak player".
>
> Well, Fischer never was a Nearly an IM...
Idiotic! Of course he was once nearly an IM!
What he was not nearly-capable of, was writing to any chess subject without
going nuts or spewing the, quite usual now, envy and spite :)
Its like Winterism, only sadder. Envy and spite seem inseperable for some.
Heuch!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2006 08:12:49
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Johnny T schrieb:
> The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score
> first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the
> sanity check part of the move. It is legal,
No longer according to FIDE.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 13:49:57
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> You wouldn't believe the advantage this gives those players who have figured
> out how to do this, LEGALLY.
I suspect you are talking about the Mon Roi Electronic Score Pads.
If this is the case, than yes you are right, and it is a real problem in
OTB chess.
For those that don't know take a look at http://www.monroi.com.
It is an interesting device that helps solve a basic problem of getting
scoresheets into computers for a variety of purposes. Including study
and tournament management. It attempts to compete with the DGT systems
of clocks and boards at a lower cost and with less infrastructure...
It attempts to also make sure that cheating doesn't happen by limiting
functionality during "recording", or during the actual playing of over
the board chess.
The problem, and this is currently covered by current chess rules, and
this is a current controversy for the rules committee, is that the entry
method is by using a touch screen to actually make moves on a
representation of a chess board in the current position. While this
seems to be an easy way to enter moves, it creates an end-run around the
spirit of touch move. A long fundamental property of over the board
(OTB) chess.
The conflict comes, is that a move is not made in OTB chess until the
actual piece is moved (and a fairly lengthy set of rules exist regarding
touch order, capturing, promotion, castling, and adjusting pieces).
The rules are meant to be fair and cover all of the possibilities of how
pieces are touched, moved, placed and recorded.
With the Mon Roi device, you make your move on a screen, BEFORE you move
the piece on the board. Just like a paper score-sheet, but since it is
done via board representation, you get a chance to make candidate
moves before you make them on the board, and double check visually for
"blunders" and other move-errors. This dramatically changes OTB from
the current touch-move/paper score-sheet system.
This is also a have/have-not problem because even if within a given
tourney all the players have Mon Roi devices, the ratings system is
meant to have a level playing field across tournaments. And "properly"
used, the Mon-Roi devices should generate "improved" chess, due to the
blunder checking properties of how the recording mode "works".
One of the proposed solutions is that no take backs should be allowed,
which would make the devices "worse" than paper score sheets, and would
prevent change of mind between scoring a move and the actual making of a
move, which has ALWAYS previously been allowed. Which again creates a
difference between tournaments.
Unlike the passive, and very expensive DGT system which does not put any
"flavor" on the game, with the possible exception of more time accuracy,
which has been considered a benefit to the game.
The board based entry model has been touted to be a more accurate entry
system, and it is. It has been touted as being better for extremely
young players whom have difficulty with paper scoresheets and may not
even know how to enter algebraic moves, and that is true. But the
"costs" to the touch move model may be too high compared to the benefits.
I believe that the only way to make the Mon Roi device to be acceptable
to an chess audience as a whole, is to switch to an algebraic entry
system, where the is no board representation, or error checking, much
the same as a paper system. And that board representation only be
allowed in local non-championship, junior scholastic (k-3) events. And
allow corrections and other functionality only AFTER the scoresheet has
been "signed" by your opponent, and downloaded, errors and all, to the
main tournament computer.
But we shall see. The Mon Roi device has received important
endorsements. The company has lobbied hard for rule changes to allow
the device. And it may be difficult to change the rules to disallow
the device once accepted. And the days of "touch move" in OTB chess may
be gone forever.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 09:42:23
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Bjoern <[email protected] > writes:
> Chess One wrote:
>> What Harold says is true about the current rule, and 'note-taking' and
>> we all rehearsed this conversation here abouwent through a long analysis ofrt a month ago.
>> For myself, writing the move beforhand has more advantages than
>> disadvantages. The big advantage is that it is proof-positive of the
>> move you intend to make, and if for example your rooks intends to stop
>> one move short of the other player's bishop, but your finger touches
>> the bishop during the move, you can /demonstrate/ you didn't intend to
>> touch it.
>> From the previous conversation I can't remember who [as a player]
>> actually considers 'cheating?' writing down moves beforehand, then
>> changing the move. To me it sound like the confusion of a weak player
>> and its hard to see how it can be any unfair advantage.
>> The contention is not that writing a move then making the move is
>> cheating -
>> even though the current rule penalises that.
>> The contention is that writing, then re-writing the move is making
>> noted. Did anyone ever, I mean ever, feal 'cheated against' this way?
>
> I seem to recall that the well-known arbiter Geurt Gijssen said that
> Bobby Fisher once protested about it.
Therefore, "Chess One" considers Bobby to be a "weak player".
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 21:32:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bjoern <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> What Harold says is true about the current rule, and 'note-taking' and
>>> we all rehearsed this conversation here abouwent through a long analysis
>>> ofrt a month ago.
>>> For myself, writing the move beforhand has more advantages than
>>> disadvantages. The big advantage is that it is proof-positive of the
>>> move you intend to make, and if for example your rooks intends to stop
>>> one move short of the other player's bishop, but your finger touches
>>> the bishop during the move, you can /demonstrate/ you didn't intend to
>>> touch it.
>>> From the previous conversation I can't remember who [as a player]
>>> actually considers 'cheating?' writing down moves beforehand, then
>>> changing the move. To me it sound like the confusion of a weak player
>>> and its hard to see how it can be any unfair advantage.
>>> The contention is not that writing a move then making the move is
>>> cheating -
>>> even though the current rule penalises that.
>>> The contention is that writing, then re-writing the move is making
>>> noted. Did anyone ever, I mean ever, feal 'cheated against' this way?
>>
>> I seem to recall that the well-known arbiter Geurt Gijssen said that
>> Bobby Fisher once protested about it.
>
> Therefore, "Chess One" considers Bobby to be a "weak player".
Rather strange logic from down Alabama way. I hadn't mentioned Fischer at
all.
What I had mentioned is strange people who make up daft rules which solve a
'no-problem' issue, while creating new ones.
Phil Innes
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 May 2006 10:19:52
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Chess One wrote:
.
> > Therefore, "Chess One" considers Bobby to be a "weak player".
>
> Rather strange logic from down Alabama way. I hadn't mentioned Fischer at
> all.
.
Strange indeed, though it's to be expected where an enclave of Scots
sheep-farmers are to be found - the inbreeding & so on..
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2006 12:34:02
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Johnny T wrote:
> With the Mon Roi device, you make your move on a screen, BEFORE you move
> the piece on the board.
What was the reasoning behind having to note your move before it is
actually made? If it could be recorded only after the move was made on
the board there would be no such problem.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2006 07:50:39
From: Johnny T
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Claus-J�rgen Heigl wrote:
> Johnny T wrote:
>> With the Mon Roi device, you make your move on a screen, BEFORE you
>> move the piece on the board.
>
> What was the reasoning behind having to note your move before it is
> actually made? If it could be recorded only after the move was made on
> the board there would be no such problem.
>
> Claus-Juergen
>
The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score
first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the
sanity check part of the move. It is legal, and promotes better chess,
without changing the spirit of the game.
You change that by changing the requirement of when you can record the
move. It also creates a directing and rules nighte. What would you
want the penalty to be? And would you change the habits of all players
depending on scoring method (paper and pencil vs. electronic scorer?)
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 09:40:15
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Johnny T <[email protected] > wrote:
> The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score
> first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the
> sanity check part of the move. It is legal, and promotes better chess,
> without changing the spirit of the game.
And it's been stated repeatedly here that the current interpretation is
that writing the move before you make it is considered note taking,
since people could change their mind, cross off the move, change their
mind, cross off the move, and so on and have a list of moves they've
eliminated. And if you never, ever change a move after writing it,
there's no advantage to writing it down first (since the only reason you
do it is to make sure it's the move you want to make before you make it).
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 11:50:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
"Harold Buck" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Johnny T <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score
>> first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the
>> sanity check part of the move. It is legal, and promotes better chess,
>> without changing the spirit of the game.
>
>
> And it's been stated repeatedly here that the current interpretation is
> that writing the move before you make it is considered note taking,
> since people could change their mind, cross off the move, change their
> mind, cross off the move, and so on and have a list of moves they've
> eliminated. And if you never, ever change a move after writing it,
> there's no advantage to writing it down first (since the only reason you
> do it is to make sure it's the move you want to make before you make it).
>
> --Harold Buck
What Harold says is true about the current rule, and 'note-taking' and we
all rehearsed this conversation here about a month ago.
For myself, writing the move beforhand has more advantages than
disadvantages. The big advantage is that it is proof-positive of the move
you intend to make, and if for example your rooks intends to stop one move
short of the other player's bishop, but your finger touches the bishop
during the move, you can /demonstrate/ you didn't intend to touch it.
From the previous conversation I can't remember who [as a player] actually
considers 'cheating?' writing down moves beforehand, then changing the move.
To me it sound like the confusion of a weak player and its hard to see how
it can be any unfair advantage.
The contention is not that writing a move then making the move is cheating -
even though the current rule penalises that.
The contention is that writing, then re-writing the move is making noted.
Did anyone ever, I mean ever, feal 'cheated against' this way?
Phil Innes
>
> "Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
>
> -Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 14:48:19
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Chess One wrote:
> What Harold says is true about the current rule, and 'note-taking' and we
> all rehearsed this conversation here about a month ago.
>
> For myself, writing the move beforhand has more advantages than
> disadvantages. The big advantage is that it is proof-positive of the move
> you intend to make, and if for example your rooks intends to stop one move
> short of the other player's bishop, but your finger touches the bishop
> during the move, you can /demonstrate/ you didn't intend to touch it.
>
> From the previous conversation I can't remember who [as a player] actually
> considers 'cheating?' writing down moves beforehand, then changing the move.
> To me it sound like the confusion of a weak player and its hard to see how
> it can be any unfair advantage.
>
> The contention is not that writing a move then making the move is cheating -
> even though the current rule penalises that.
> The contention is that writing, then re-writing the move is making noted.
> Did anyone ever, I mean ever, feal 'cheated against' this way?
I seem to recall that the well-known arbiter Geurt Gijssen said that
Bobby Fisher once protested about it.
I also once had an opponent who complained about it, but not in the
sense of a formal protest, he told me after the game that he would never
have played on for so long in a losing position if I hadn't been so
unfair as to write down my move beforehand and then putting my pen down
in such a way that he couldn't read it from the other side of the board
(while myself or someone standing behind me could have).
--Bj�rn
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2006 12:54:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
"Bjoern" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> What Harold says is true about the current rule, and 'note-taking' and we
>> all rehearsed this conversation here about a month ago.
>>
>> For myself, writing the move beforhand has more advantages than
>> disadvantages. The big advantage is that it is proof-positive of the move
>> you intend to make, and if for example your rooks intends to stop one
>> move short of the other player's bishop, but your finger touches the
>> bishop during the move, you can /demonstrate/ you didn't intend to touch
>> it.
>>
>> From the previous conversation I can't remember who [as a player]
>> actually considers 'cheating?' writing down moves beforehand, then
>> changing the move. To me it sound like the confusion of a weak player and
>> its hard to see how it can be any unfair advantage.
>>
>> The contention is not that writing a move then making the move is
>> cheating - even though the current rule penalises that.
>> The contention is that writing, then re-writing the move is making noted.
>> Did anyone ever, I mean ever, feal 'cheated against' this way?
>
> I seem to recall that the well-known arbiter Geurt Gijssen said that Bobby
> Fisher once protested about it.
Geurt Gijssen actually sponsored this one-move = note-taking new rule.
> I also once had an opponent who complained about it, but not in the sense
> of a formal protest, he told me after the game that he would never have
> played on for so long in a losing position if I hadn't been so unfair as
> to write down my move beforehand and then putting my pen down in such a
> way that he couldn't read it from the other side of the board (while
> myself or someone standing behind me could have).
:)
Phil
> --Bj�rn
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 18:05:18
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Johnny T <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score
>>first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the
>>sanity check part of the move. It is legal, and promotes better chess,
>>without changing the spirit of the game.
>
>
>
> And it's been stated repeatedly here that the current interpretation is
> that writing the move before you make it is considered note taking,
> since people could change their mind, cross off the move, change their
> mind, cross off the move, and so on and have a list of moves they've
> eliminated. And if you never, ever change a move after writing it,
> there's no advantage to writing it down first (since the only reason you
> do it is to make sure it's the move you want to make before you make it).
It's not a matter of interpretation any more. The latest FIDE rules
forbid it beyond any doubt, it is absolutely clear now that you may only
write your move on the score sheet after making it. I never thought
there was anything much wrong with writing it down beforehand and was
taught to do it when I started playing chess (I always felt that
complaining about that was taking the principle of allowing no
help/notes a bit too far), on the other hand I can also just as happily
live with writing my move after making it. In the end it's just a matter
of mental discipline to re-check your move one final time before you
make it and the writing down of the move beforehand was just a tiny
little reminder.
--Bj�rn
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 05:08:48
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
Johnny T wrote:
> Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
>=20
>> Johnny T wrote:
>>
>>> With the Mon Roi device, you make your move on a screen, BEFORE you=20
>>> move the piece on the board. =20
>>
>> What was the reasoning behind having to note your move before it is=20
>> actually made? If it could be recorded only after the move was made on=
=20
>> the board there would be no such problem.
>>
> The reasoning that many/most players are taught/do write the score=20
> first, double check over the board, THEN make the move. It is the=20
> sanity check part of the move. It is legal, and promotes better chess,=
=20
> without changing the spirit of the game.
If recording the move with pen and paper before it is being made helps=20
the thought process me thinks it isn't so different from recording the=20
move on a screen helping your thought process. I can't quite see why one =
technical means (pen and paper) to help the thought process should be=20
allowed while another (electronic device) should be not.
I think the reason behind the FIDE rule that recording of the move is=20
only allowed after the move is made is that no technical means should be =
allowed to help the thought process. Whatever it is.
> You change that by changing the requirement of when you can record the =
> move. It also creates a directing and rules nighte. What would yo=
u=20
> want the penalty to be? And would you change the habits of all players=
=20
> depending on scoring method (paper and pencil vs. electronic scorer?)
I think this rule change affects the game far less than the changed time =
controls.
The usual penalty to a small violation of the rules is a small time=20
penalty. This is very easy to implement and should produce no nightes.=
Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2006 17:19:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
>> You wouldn't believe the advantage this gives those players who have
>> figured out how to do this, LEGALLY.
>
> I suspect you are talking about the Mon Roi Electronic Score Pads.
No.
> If this is the case, than yes you are right, and it is a real problem in
> OTB chess.
>
> For those that don't know take a look at http://www.monroi.com.
>
> It is an interesting device that helps solve a basic problem of getting
> scoresheets into computers for a variety of purposes. Including study and
> tournament management. It attempts to compete with the DGT systems of
> clocks and boards at a lower cost and with less infrastructure...
But it can be used for cheating?
> It attempts to also make sure that cheating doesn't happen by limiting
> functionality during "recording", or during the actual playing of over the
> board chess.
I have a better way of doing it: don't allow devices that have that
"function" in the tournament hall if it can help with analysis.
What I do violates no rules and I will proudly demonstrate it when I play.
USCF ***has absolutely no power**** to stop what I came up with. In fact,
ANY player can do it if he's st enough to figure out how.
USCF would have to change the rules, and I don't think they'd do what was
necessary to stop my brilliantly evil plan.
> The problem, and this is currently covered by current chess rules, and
> this is a current controversy for the rules committee, is that the entry
> method is by using a touch screen to actually make moves on a
> representation of a chess board in the current position. While this
> seems to be an easy way to enter moves, it creates an end-run around the
> spirit of touch move. A long fundamental property of over the board (OTB)
> chess.
No, I'm talking about a way to use chess computers (engines) for assistance
in my tournament play. Legally. While I am in the tournament.
I suspect this will give me a crushing advantage when I return to play, at
least temporarily, until others figure out how to do the same thing or USCF
changes the rules of tournament chess to stop me.
> The conflict comes, is that a move is not made in OTB chess until the
> actual piece is moved (and a fairly lengthy set of rules exist regarding
> touch order, capturing, promotion, castling, and adjusting pieces).
Recording is supposed to be done after the fact, as a kibitzer could read
the scoresheet and give a signal.
Not that kibitzers should even be allowed in the hall anymore.
> The rules are meant to be fair and cover all of the possibilities of how
> pieces are touched, moved, placed and recorded.
We need "SAT security."
Recording is note taking, which is illegal.
I'm just using a chess computer for assistance to play my tournament games,
which is legal.
> With the Mon Roi device, you make your move on a screen, BEFORE you move
> the piece on the board. Just like a paper score-sheet, but since it is
> done via board representation, you get a chance to make candidate moves
> before you make them on the board, and double check visually for
> "blunders" and other move-errors. This dramatically changes OTB from the
> current touch-move/paper score-sheet system.
This is legal? I would never play in an event where it were legal, or maybe
I would just to humiliate the opponent.
> This is also a have/have-not problem because even if within a given
> tourney all the players have Mon Roi devices, the ratings system is meant
> to have a level playing field across tournaments.
And "properly"
> used, the Mon-Roi devices should generate "improved" chess, due to the
> blunder checking properties of how the recording mode "works".
Of course. Why is this thing legal then?
> One of the proposed solutions is that no take backs should be allowed,
> which would make the devices "worse" than paper score sheets, and would
> prevent change of mind between scoring a move and the actual making of a
> move, which has ALWAYS previously been allowed.
And which should never be allowed, for that reason.
Pen and paper work just fine for the scoring.
>Which again creates a difference between tournaments.
>
> Unlike the passive, and very expensive DGT system which does not put any
> "flavor" on the game, with the possible exception of more time accuracy,
> which has been considered a benefit to the game.
>
> The board based entry model has been touted to be a more accurate entry
> system, and it is. It has been touted as being better for extremely young
> players whom have difficulty with paper scoresheets and may not even know
> how to enter algebraic moves, and that is true.
I'd rather games be played over the ICC interface at computer stations
actually. You could even have banter, kibitzing, and whispering during the
games!
Instead of "Nakamura Wins US Title" it can become "Nakamura Wins US Title,
Takes Time Out To Taunt Weak Opposition in Kibitz."
He can flag someone, add "moretime" to their clock, and flag them again!
That's ESPN material!
> But the "costs" to the touch move model may be too high compared to the
> benefits.
I prefer the ICC interface, and I suspect many other top players do as well.
That thing not only records the games, but keeps track of the rules.
The only question would be if looking at porn with another program during a
tournament were legal OTB if you had your own playing booth.
> I believe that the only way to make the Mon Roi device to be acceptable to
> an chess audience as a whole, is to switch to an algebraic entry system,
> where the is no board representation, or error checking, much the same as
> a paper system. And that board representation only be allowed in local
> non-championship, junior scholastic (k-3) events. And allow corrections
> and other functionality only AFTER the scoresheet has been "signed" by
> your opponent, and downloaded, errors and all, to the main tournament
> computer.
This is bogus. Don't tell me they allow this shit in the US Championship.
Please.
> But we shall see. The Mon Roi device has received important endorsements.
> The company has lobbied hard for rule changes to allow the device.
One thing I'll say in their favor is that if both players have it, there
shouldn't be a problem.
They should be able to make it cheat-proof, however.
>And it may be difficult to change the rules to disallow the device once
>accepted. And the days of "touch move" in OTB chess may be gone forever.
So we're reduced to Washington Square Park rules like with the old guys who
wave the pieces in the air for an hour before choosing a move?
Wonderful.
I feel like ty McFly in the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 05:26:44
From: Poco Bueno
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
basically, I think you just need a good smack in the mouth
warm regards
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2006 10:20:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chessplayers are LEGALLY using computers in tournaments!
|
> basically, I think you just need a good smack in the mouth
Oh how tough he talks.... (he's really secretly gay and mad he can't have
me).
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
|
