Main Date: 06 Nov 2007 00:25:05 From: [email protected] Subject: Why FIDE wants drug tests >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 80). Not Keene On Testing Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a single game of chess. Yet FIDE is now pushing for universal drug testing on the pretext of getting chess into the Olympics, thus making it eligible for government funding in many nations. The Spanish Chess Federation, for example, receives about $320,000 a year from the Council of Sports for testing 20 players at random. More than 100 substances are banned, including excess levels of alcohol, cannabis, and coffee. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in tournaments.Branding chess as an athletic endeavor is ludicrous, and the United States Olympic Committee had the good sense to reject this hobby as a sport. FIDE Goes Beserk Although chess is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, that doesn't stop the bureaucrats from imposing their silly regulations. "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug testing will not be able to play chess," wrote Dr. Stephen Press, vice- chairman of FIDE's medical commission. "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will meekly submit to these senseless humiliations." "The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is 'Faster, Stronger, Higher.'-not Cleverer," noted an outraged amateur. "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic performance, while at the same time often harming the athletes who take them. No such problem has been established in chess, and chess players are therefore properly suspicious and even resentful when told they have to be drug tested. I have no sympathy with the people who claim they are fighting to get chess into the Olympics; and I have actual animus toward officials who try to impose controls on chess with the excuse that the Olympics requires drug testing." Ray Keene, Britain's leading chess authority, argues that the real agenda is to control the careers of players. Some excerpts from his article in the Spectator: =B7 Performance enhancing drugs-steroids of the mind as it were-are not and never have been a problem in chess. =B7 Although chess bureaucrats are enthusiastic about these new regulations, players as a whole are neither ready nor willing to submit to wholesale drug testing. =B7 FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out any real abuse in chess. =B7 Why do chess officials waste their time on this kind of nonsense when it is clear that their constituencies have absolutely no interest in it? =B7 This syndrome is absolutely rife in politics. I have seen it so many times before. FIDE Delegates imperceptibly at first cease to represent the views of their own country-instead they start to represent FIDE's views to their country, thus becoming a kind of fifth column! That is why nation states continually revolve their ambassadors before they 'go native' in the quaint phraseology of the British Foreign Office. =B7 The key is often insidious hospitality. Once the naive backwoods chess politician starts rubbing shoulders with the FIDE bigwigs, invitations to dinner start coming in, exclusive gatherings of top people. It's not so much gifts and bribes as corruption by association. =B7 We know what's best for Ivan and Ivan should shut up and take his medicine. After all it's good for him and good for chess. Discipline- that's what Ivan needs.   Date: 06 Dec 2007 16:51:13 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests IM JOHN DONALDSON OPPOSES DRUG TESTING Dear Friends, A present drug testing for chess players has not been performed in the United States. Last Olympiad (Turin 2006) one American player got selected at random. It was not appreciated and one would have thought that the individual's inability to produce a sample would have been sufficient grounds to conclude that they were drug free knowing coffee's well-known diuretic effect. As it was they had to consume some fluids and wait for nature to take its course to produce a specimen which was not tested for several months. I believe and hope the specimen was mixed up with that of Floyd Landis. Seriously, you point out that FIDE in the past listened to the USCF. I would emphasize in the past. As a supporter of Bessel Kok (along with fellow US Olympiad team members - hence our orange ties) I don't have any illusions after last years election. The active involvement of the US in world chess is well-known as it has hosted numerous Olympiads (zero), Interzonals (zero), World Juniors ( zero) etc, etc. If it were just countries with few chess players it would be one thing but Germany and the Netherlands are something else. No doubt some and maybe most of the money received by being members of national sporting bodies is spent for administrative pork but the Dutch use it for the Olympiad team and national championships. I mention Holland because I would include it on a short list of civilized places on the planet. All this doesn't mean I support drug testing. Rather I do realize that if there is going to be a change it is going to need to be well thought and accommodate some of the existing realities - that federations will not give up a dedicated income stream without a guaranteed replacement lined up. I do have one idea in mind. One thing that does need to be tested for and where the public good outweighs the intrusion on person is computer cheating. Ideally if the IOC accepted testing for computer cheating in place of drug testing there would be a win-win situation. If the technology is good enough the testing for computer assistance would be no more intrusive than a metal detector. Anybody that has analyzed with Rybka or Fritz 10 realizes these are monsters! John [email protected] wrote: > IM JOHN DONALDSON SAYS COFFEE IS THE CULPRIT > > Dear Larry, Erik and other friends, > > A few observations and corrections. > > 1. Before Turin 2006 Yasser and I were both very much interested in > how many federations received a significant amount of their annual > budget from their national Olympic body. We were told by John > Fernandez that it was over half the member nations of FIDE. We had no > way to verify this information. If it is the case it would definitely > be a serious roadblock to getting rid of drug testing. The fact that > the Dutch federation finally acquiesced to drug testing to get money > for their federation is a sobering thought. > > 2. Though the chances of chess becoming an Olympic sport would seem to > be between thin and none (summer games are overcrowded and those for > winter must be played on snow or ice) Kirsan greatly enjoys the > "observer" status that chess enjoys in the IOC. I don't think he > really believes chess will ever become a part of the regular Olympics > or at least realizes the odds are strongly against it, but clearly > sees a value in the current arrangement which provides some extra > visibility for chess (an observer sport in the 2000 games with Anand > and Shirov) and enhances the role of the FIDE president. I don't think > anyone would disagree with the statement that being president of an > international body puts Kirsan in a better position in his > relationship with Putin. I didn't see any statements by Kirsan when > Garry was locked up. > > 3. Bill Kelleher was not put in his position on the FIDE Presidential > Board by the USCF. He was elected by FIDE delegates in an election. > That said he does represent the USCF position. He recently did good by > persuading the organizers of the Womens World Championship in > Argentina to shift their dates slightly to accommodate the US > Championship which had anchored its dates some time ago. I realize > that this might not seem to be a big deal but it did allow Irina Krush > to play in both (maybe Anna Zatonskih as well). > > I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic but the impression I have is > many in FIDE are happy to sign on to a drug testing deal that will > bring in money for their players who will very likely never have to > pee in a cup. > > The one group that might be able to influence FIDE is the ACP > (Association of Chess Professionals). I believe this is includes > pretty much all the top players. They do have some leverage with FIDE > but again I would emphasize that a relationship with the IOC ranks > very high on Kirsan's list of priorities. Another angle might be > finding a way that drug testing was removed as a requirement for being > an "observer" sport in the IOC. Another possibility would be to get > Starbucks as the official sponsor for FIDE (caffeine is the drug that > is restricted and what the drug testers are looking for). > > Best > John Donaldon > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) > > > > <Larry Parr's take that drug testing is a "civil liberties" issue is > > typically facile. In sports (including cycling) where doping confers > > a huge advantage, the very integrity of the sport requires testing.> > > -- David Kane > > > > This David Kane is as ugly a beaut' as weve had here. > > > > His attempted defense of bringing drug testing to > > the art of chess amounts to this: treat chess players > > like weightlifters. If FIDE wishes to destroy the > > careers of chess intellectuals who dissent, so be it. > > If Grandmaster Yusupov does not bow to a Kane or a > > Kirsan, then end his career. That's the nub. > > > > As it happens, I do not argue that drug testing > > is a civil liberties issue. It is a social liberties issue. > > > > Civil liberties involve a citizen's relationship > > with the State; social liberties are often about the > > kind of social behavior that we would restrict. > > > > I argue that FIDE has the right as a private > > social organization to require anything it wants of > > players and those involved in chess. So, too, we in > > chess have a perfect right to withdraw from FIDE and > > look elsewhere. We have a right, if possible, to > > restrict funding for that organization and for the > > USCF if it colludes in this latest outrage of > > out-of-competition drug testing. > > > > The issue of drug testing in chess is about the > > kind of chess world that we wish to have. Is it to be > > a chess world run by prancing bureaucrats, or ought > > the chess world to be nearly totally about one thing: > > chess and those who play it, write about it and > > contribute to the free society of chess players. > > > > We are getting a taste of what it will mean to > > live in a society without civil liberties and nearly > > any kind of privacy. A high-ranking U.S. intelligence > > official has just testified that old-fashioned ideas > > of anonymity and privacy will have to go. > > > > In society, there is a similar push to regiment > > and to destroy spontaneity. These efforts by private > > groups are sometimes supported by government contracts > > or outright grants. In the U.S. tax money is not going > > toward drug testing, but in other countries it does. In > > some countries, drug testing is a civil liberties issue; > > in America it is a private social liberties issue. > > > > Some of you will inevitably be on the side of > > the David Kane controllers and the bureaucrats. You > > like control, fear spontaneity. I hope that a vast > > majority of you still have enough belief in the free > > life to reject not only government incursions on free > > speech or searches without warrants but also will > > fight against attempts to control any number of social > > activities -- including, in the current instance, this > > outrage in our tiny world of chess. > > > > All of the above is beside this fact: no > > complaint has ever been lodged, let alone sustained, > > that someone won a game because he ingested a drug. > > Millions and millions of tournaments games have been > > played, and there has never been a drug complaint in > > the world of chess. > > > > You know this. The chess bureaucrats know this. > > David Kane knows this. But there are those who wish > > to gain control over this tiny world of chess, and drug > > testing is their solution to a problem that never > > existed in tournaments and does not exist now. > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > news:2e922d81-f621-425a-bc54-04a8a023a4ba@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they > > > >> >too > > > >> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > > > >> >Western democracies. > > > >> > > > >> >Phil Innes > > > >> > > > >> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > > > > > > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > > > > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > > > > it or get out. > > > > > > John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;) > > > > > > Phil Innes   Date: 03 Dec 2007 18:10:42 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests OBSERVATIONS ON IM DONALDSON'S REPORT Dear Friends, I think John Donaldson's fine sumy of the possibilities for eliminating drug testing backs up the strategy of attacking the problem in FIDE at the national level of the USCF. John writes that Kirsan Ilyumzhinov "enjoys" his observer status at the IOC and finds his presidency of an international organization a plus when dealing with Vladimir Putin. I have no doubt that both statements are true. My difficulty is imagining that either reason is sufficient to destroy the free traditions of chess and to impose a diktat for irrational reasons. Nor, to be sure, is John so arguing. He merely gives us a description of political geography. I begin by approachng this problem with still some love for logical sense and free sensibility. The idea of trying to change anything at the IOC level is pie-in-the-sky. All of which means: attacking the drug testing at the level of the USCF. If we convince the Federation through financial force majeure to cease de facto support for drug testing in chess, then FIDE will have to take notice. It cannot permit a major member federation to announce publicly that it will disobey official FIDE policy. A crisis must then ensue. As for Bill Kelleher, although it is true that he has become a functionary within FIDE and is not selected by the USCF, he would have to choose between the will of his own national federation or his role as a political figure without the support of his own country were the USCF to instruct him to obey -- as he should have been doing all along -- the clear words in ADM 64 to campaign actively at all FIDE meetings against drug testing in ALL tournaments and matches. I charge the man with being faithless to the clear meaning of his duty before he garnered his current FIDE post. His job now is evidently, given the intellectually insulting FIDE report he submitted, to represent FIDE within America rather than the reverse. John Donaldson approaches FIDE and international questions at the level of technical fulfillment of assigned tasks. I am writing at the level of the way things ought to be and how best to effect changes. I have known John since the year nineteen aught eight or thereabouts, and organizing and pursuing a cause is not his cup of strong tea. My view is that one must condition actions on the telos to make sure that one is not performing successfully a series of technical tasks that lead eventually -- in this instance of chess -- to a world devoid of spontaneity and essential decency. Finally, the entire issue of money for federations who support drug testing led to a final CLAIMED figure of about $1.3 million for the entire world. But even this small number was false. In the case of Malaysia, for example, there are some funds available from the national ministry to attend Asian games where there is drug testing. BUT!: FIDE is not the testing agency, and it is NOT because of FIDE's adoption of drug testing that the players receive money. Let us remember: anyone is free, if they so wish, to attend some international event and be drug tested. If some player wants a mess of pottage -- a plane ticket here, a gratis hotel room there -- in exchange for signing some piece of paper, that is his business. He is free to do that whatever FIDE's position on drug testing happens to be. The Malaysian Chess Federation would still receive its funds regardless of its position on drug testing, if players participating in some regional games choose to allow themselves to be drug tested in return for a few pieces of silver tossed their way. It's a shame that there is such indifference among some for the free life in terms both of civil freedom from governmental incursions and social freedom from busybodies prying, prying, prying in an effort to destroy privacy. Yours, Larry Parr [email protected] wrote: > IM JOHN DONALDSON SAYS COFFEE IS THE CULPRIT > > Dear Larry, Erik and other friends, > > A few observations and corrections. > > 1. Before Turin 2006 Yasser and I were both very much interested in > how many federations received a significant amount of their annual > budget from their national Olympic body. We were told by John > Fernandez that it was over half the member nations of FIDE. We had no > way to verify this information. If it is the case it would definitely > be a serious roadblock to getting rid of drug testing. The fact that > the Dutch federation finally acquiesced to drug testing to get money > for their federation is a sobering thought. > > 2. Though the chances of chess becoming an Olympic sport would seem to > be between thin and none (summer games are overcrowded and those for > winter must be played on snow or ice) Kirsan greatly enjoys the > "observer" status that chess enjoys in the IOC. I don't think he > really believes chess will ever become a part of the regular Olympics > or at least realizes the odds are strongly against it, but clearly > sees a value in the current arrangement which provides some extra > visibility for chess (an observer sport in the 2000 games with Anand > and Shirov) and enhances the role of the FIDE president. I don't think > anyone would disagree with the statement that being president of an > international body puts Kirsan in a better position in his > relationship with Putin. I didn't see any statements by Kirsan when > Garry was locked up. > > 3. Bill Kelleher was not put in his position on the FIDE Presidential > Board by the USCF. He was elected by FIDE delegates in an election. > That said he does represent the USCF position. He recently did good by > persuading the organizers of the Womens World Championship in > Argentina to shift their dates slightly to accommodate the US > Championship which had anchored its dates some time ago. I realize > that this might not seem to be a big deal but it did allow Irina Krush > to play in both (maybe Anna Zatonskih as well). > > I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic but the impression I have is > many in FIDE are happy to sign on to a drug testing deal that will > bring in money for their players who will very likely never have to > pee in a cup. > > The one group that might be able to influence FIDE is the ACP > (Association of Chess Professionals). I believe this is includes > pretty much all the top players. They do have some leverage with FIDE > but again I would emphasize that a relationship with the IOC ranks > very high on Kirsan's list of priorities. Another angle might be > finding a way that drug testing was removed as a requirement for being > an "observer" sport in the IOC. Another possibility would be to get > Starbucks as the official sponsor for FIDE (caffeine is the drug that > is restricted and what the drug testers are looking for). > > Best > John Donaldon > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) > > > > <Larry Parr's take that drug testing is a "civil liberties" issue is > > typically facile. In sports (including cycling) where doping confers > > a huge advantage, the very integrity of the sport requires testing.> > > -- David Kane > > > > This David Kane is as ugly a beaut' as weve had here. > > > > His attempted defense of bringing drug testing to > > the art of chess amounts to this: treat chess players > > like weightlifters. If FIDE wishes to destroy the > > careers of chess intellectuals who dissent, so be it. > > If Grandmaster Yusupov does not bow to a Kane or a > > Kirsan, then end his career. That's the nub. > > > > As it happens, I do not argue that drug testing > > is a civil liberties issue. It is a social liberties issue. > > > > Civil liberties involve a citizen's relationship > > with the State; social liberties are often about the > > kind of social behavior that we would restrict. > > > > I argue that FIDE has the right as a private > > social organization to require anything it wants of > > players and those involved in chess. So, too, we in > > chess have a perfect right to withdraw from FIDE and > > look elsewhere. We have a right, if possible, to > > restrict funding for that organization and for the > > USCF if it colludes in this latest outrage of > > out-of-competition drug testing. > > > > The issue of drug testing in chess is about the > > kind of chess world that we wish to have. Is it to be > > a chess world run by prancing bureaucrats, or ought > > the chess world to be nearly totally about one thing: > > chess and those who play it, write about it and > > contribute to the free society of chess players. > > > > We are getting a taste of what it will mean to > > live in a society without civil liberties and nearly > > any kind of privacy. A high-ranking U.S. intelligence > > official has just testified that old-fashioned ideas > > of anonymity and privacy will have to go. > > > > In society, there is a similar push to regiment > > and to destroy spontaneity. These efforts by private > > groups are sometimes supported by government contracts > > or outright grants. In the U.S. tax money is not going > > toward drug testing, but in other countries it does. In > > some countries, drug testing is a civil liberties issue; > > in America it is a private social liberties issue. > > > > Some of you will inevitably be on the side of > > the David Kane controllers and the bureaucrats. You > > like control, fear spontaneity. I hope that a vast > > majority of you still have enough belief in the free > > life to reject not only government incursions on free > > speech or searches without warrants but also will > > fight against attempts to control any number of social > > activities -- including, in the current instance, this > > outrage in our tiny world of chess. > > > > All of the above is beside this fact: no > > complaint has ever been lodged, let alone sustained, > > that someone won a game because he ingested a drug. > > Millions and millions of tournaments games have been > > played, and there has never been a drug complaint in > > the world of chess. > > > > You know this. The chess bureaucrats know this. > > David Kane knows this. But there are those who wish > > to gain control over this tiny world of chess, and drug > > testing is their solution to a problem that never > > existed in tournaments and does not exist now. > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > news:2e922d81-f621-425a-bc54-04a8a023a4ba@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they > > > >> >too > > > >> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > > > >> >Western democracies. > > > >> > > > >> >Phil Innes > > > >> > > > >> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > > > > > > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > > > > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > > > > it or get out. > > > > > > John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;) > > > > > > Phil Innes   Date: 03 Dec 2007 15:04:44 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests IM JOHN DONALDSON SAYS COFFEE IS THE CULPRIT Dear Larry, Erik and other friends, A few observations and corrections. 1. Before Turin 2006 Yasser and I were both very much interested in how many federations received a significant amount of their annual budget from their national Olympic body. We were told by John Fernandez that it was over half the member nations of FIDE. We had no way to verify this information. If it is the case it would definitely be a serious roadblock to getting rid of drug testing. The fact that the Dutch federation finally acquiesced to drug testing to get money for their federation is a sobering thought. 2. Though the chances of chess becoming an Olympic sport would seem to be between thin and none (summer games are overcrowded and those for winter must be played on snow or ice) Kirsan greatly enjoys the "observer" status that chess enjoys in the IOC. I don't think he really believes chess will ever become a part of the regular Olympics or at least realizes the odds are strongly against it, but clearly sees a value in the current arrangement which provides some extra visibility for chess (an observer sport in the 2000 games with Anand and Shirov) and enhances the role of the FIDE president. I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that being president of an international body puts Kirsan in a better position in his relationship with Putin. I didn't see any statements by Kirsan when Garry was locked up. 3. Bill Kelleher was not put in his position on the FIDE Presidential Board by the USCF. He was elected by FIDE delegates in an election. That said he does represent the USCF position. He recently did good by persuading the organizers of the Womens World Championship in Argentina to shift their dates slightly to accommodate the US Championship which had anchored its dates some time ago. I realize that this might not seem to be a big deal but it did allow Irina Krush to play in both (maybe Anna Zatonskih as well). I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic but the impression I have is many in FIDE are happy to sign on to a drug testing deal that will bring in money for their players who will very likely never have to pee in a cup. The one group that might be able to influence FIDE is the ACP (Association of Chess Professionals). I believe this is includes pretty much all the top players. They do have some leverage with FIDE but again I would emphasize that a relationship with the IOC ranks very high on Kirsan's list of priorities. Another angle might be finding a way that drug testing was removed as a requirement for being an "observer" sport in the IOC. Another possibility would be to get Starbucks as the official sponsor for FIDE (caffeine is the drug that is restricted and what the drug testers are looking for). Best John Donaldon [email protected] wrote: > SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) > > <Larry Parr's take that drug testing is a "civil liberties" issue is > typically facile. In sports (including cycling) where doping confers > a huge advantage, the very integrity of the sport requires testing.> > -- David Kane > > This David Kane is as ugly a beaut' as weve had here. > > His attempted defense of bringing drug testing to > the art of chess amounts to this: treat chess players > like weightlifters. If FIDE wishes to destroy the > careers of chess intellectuals who dissent, so be it. > If Grandmaster Yusupov does not bow to a Kane or a > Kirsan, then end his career. That's the nub. > > As it happens, I do not argue that drug testing > is a civil liberties issue. It is a social liberties issue. > > Civil liberties involve a citizen's relationship > with the State; social liberties are often about the > kind of social behavior that we would restrict. > > I argue that FIDE has the right as a private > social organization to require anything it wants of > players and those involved in chess. So, too, we in > chess have a perfect right to withdraw from FIDE and > look elsewhere. We have a right, if possible, to > restrict funding for that organization and for the > USCF if it colludes in this latest outrage of > out-of-competition drug testing. > > The issue of drug testing in chess is about the > kind of chess world that we wish to have. Is it to be > a chess world run by prancing bureaucrats, or ought > the chess world to be nearly totally about one thing: > chess and those who play it, write about it and > contribute to the free society of chess players. > > We are getting a taste of what it will mean to > live in a society without civil liberties and nearly > any kind of privacy. A high-ranking U.S. intelligence > official has just testified that old-fashioned ideas > of anonymity and privacy will have to go. > > In society, there is a similar push to regiment > and to destroy spontaneity. These efforts by private > groups are sometimes supported by government contracts > or outright grants. In the U.S. tax money is not going > toward drug testing, but in other countries it does. In > some countries, drug testing is a civil liberties issue; > in America it is a private social liberties issue. > > Some of you will inevitably be on the side of > the David Kane controllers and the bureaucrats. You > like control, fear spontaneity. I hope that a vast > majority of you still have enough belief in the free > life to reject not only government incursions on free > speech or searches without warrants but also will > fight against attempts to control any number of social > activities -- including, in the current instance, this > outrage in our tiny world of chess. > > All of the above is beside this fact: no > complaint has ever been lodged, let alone sustained, > that someone won a game because he ingested a drug. > Millions and millions of tournaments games have been > played, and there has never been a drug complaint in > the world of chess. > > You know this. The chess bureaucrats know this. > David Kane knows this. But there are those who wish > to gain control over this tiny world of chess, and drug > testing is their solution to a problem that never > existed in tournaments and does not exist now. > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:2e922d81-f621-425a-bc54-04a8a023a4ba@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they > > >> >too > > >> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > > >> >Western democracies. > > >> > > >> >Phil Innes > > >> > > >> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > > > > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > > > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > > > it or get out. > > > > John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;) > > > > Phil Innes   Date: 27 Nov 2007 10:34:23 From: SBD Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 27, 8:09 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too > > >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > > >Western democracies. > > > >Phil Innes > > > Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > it or get out. Unfortunately, you probably have to be able to manage your own affairs before trying to manage the affairs of others.     Date: 27 Nov 2007 16:00:45 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:504cb22a-f005-4bf6-99ff-acf5b7545cc4@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 27, 8:09 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they >> > >too >> > >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the >> > >Western democracies. >> >> > >Phil Innes >> >> > Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. >> >> That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that >> my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running >> it or get out. > > Unfortunately, you probably have to be able to manage your own affairs > before trying to manage the affairs of others. The subjective measure is left out, and this is very often, Dr. D., the sum and all of it. Many 'witnesses' are [privately] invested in the result, by guilt favor or ambition, and these people can have the most clamorous voices. It is not seemly; not intellectual decent, even, yet where there is money & other favours in the picture, then the lights go out for the real deals. In 1999 Tarasov of Fide Commerce, had a secret meeting with Garry in London. Garry told him to go to hell, since the personal cost of readmission would have been to sell the rest of us down the river. Fortunately the 'money' at the meeting gave more credit to Garry as a player, than to the organisation, and they too, walked away. Now we have another face on things, Fide Commerce '2', run by someone who Nigel Short supported, then... and whose subsequent activity in joining commercial forces with Fide made people's jaws drop. In the end we all seem to want the same thing for USCF as for Fide, an open and transparent governance which we can respect, with objective standards, not favorites of personalities, and is this so very much to ask in 2007? Certainly, the 'Money' keeps staying away from the game, since it sniffs something wrong, O so Wrong-O. Phil Innes   Date: 27 Nov 2007 07:39:55 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) <Larry Parr's take that drug testing is a "civil liberties" issue is typically facile. In sports (including cycling) where doping confers a huge advantage, the very integrity of the sport requires testing. > -- David Kane This David Kane is as ugly a beaut' as weve had here. His attempted defense of bringing drug testing to the art of chess amounts to this: treat chess players like weightlifters. If FIDE wishes to destroy the careers of chess intellectuals who dissent, so be it. If Grandmaster Yusupov does not bow to a Kane or a Kirsan, then end his career. That's the nub. As it happens, I do not argue that drug testing is a civil liberties issue. It is a social liberties issue. Civil liberties involve a citizen's relationship with the State; social liberties are often about the kind of social behavior that we would restrict. I argue that FIDE has the right as a private social organization to require anything it wants of players and those involved in chess. So, too, we in chess have a perfect right to withdraw from FIDE and look elsewhere. We have a right, if possible, to restrict funding for that organization and for the USCF if it colludes in this latest outrage of out-of-competition drug testing. The issue of drug testing in chess is about the kind of chess world that we wish to have. Is it to be a chess world run by prancing bureaucrats, or ought the chess world to be nearly totally about one thing: chess and those who play it, write about it and contribute to the free society of chess players. We are getting a taste of what it will mean to live in a society without civil liberties and nearly any kind of privacy. A high-ranking U.S. intelligence official has just testified that old-fashioned ideas of anonymity and privacy will have to go. In society, there is a similar push to regiment and to destroy spontaneity. These efforts by private groups are sometimes supported by government contracts or outright grants. In the U.S. tax money is not going toward drug testing, but in other countries it does. In some countries, drug testing is a civil liberties issue; in America it is a private social liberties issue. Some of you will inevitably be on the side of the David Kane controllers and the bureaucrats. You like control, fear spontaneity. I hope that a vast majority of you still have enough belief in the free life to reject not only government incursions on free speech or searches without warrants but also will fight against attempts to control any number of social activities -- including, in the current instance, this outrage in our tiny world of chess. All of the above is beside this fact: no complaint has ever been lodged, let alone sustained, that someone won a game because he ingested a drug. Millions and millions of tournaments games have been played, and there has never been a drug complaint in the world of chess. You know this. The chess bureaucrats know this. David Kane knows this. But there are those who wish to gain control over this tiny world of chess, and drug testing is their solution to a problem that never existed in tournaments and does not exist now. Yours, Larry Parr Chess One wrote: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:2e922d81-f621-425a-bc54-04a8a023a4ba@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they > >> >too > >> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > >> >Western democracies. > >> > >> >Phil Innes > >> > >> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > > it or get out. > > John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;) > > Phil Innes     Date: 29 Nov 2007 07:54:03 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests HARD TO FIND <Thanks, Larry. I had trouble believing what I was seeing the first time. Does help-bot really believe GM Evans' games are "hard to find?" -- The Historian Neil, It's about on a parr with Greg Kennedy's other claims. The Historian wrote: > On Nov 29, 8:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS > > > > Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting > > from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on > > and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates. > > Their crime is that they were far better than he is or > > will ever be. > > . > > Yours, Larry Parr > > Thanks, Larry. I had trouble believing what I was seeing the first > time. Does help-bot really believe GM Evans' games are "hard to find?"     Date: 27 Nov 2007 13:38:40 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests -- speculation Greetings friends, Let me throw in a bit of speculation from an unexpected direction. K Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechnology," had interesting predictions that bear on this subject. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler ) People have guessed that it might take 50 years for nanotechnology to develop to the point where the following is possible. That was in the late 1980s. Dr. Drexler projected that we would at some point have molecular-sized, self-replicating super-computers. He also projected that we would have molecular-sized, self-replicating injectable "hospitals." The chess connection is interesting. How are we going to check to see if a contestant shot up a few thousand nano-super-computers and nano-drug-manufacture-plants before a competition? There is an obvious answer... FIDE will have to inject each contestant with nano-investigator-regulator-bots before each competition! -- Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "... what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage." -- Bobby Henderson opposing Evolution & Intelligent Design       Date: 29 Nov 2007 18:36:33 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests KANE-KENNEDY ALLIANCE >Predictably, Parr has yet to explain how >something like, say, receiving a blood transfusion >before a bike race is an example of mankind's >cherished "spontaneity". -- David Kane Blood testing in chess? Treating great players like bicyclists or weightlifters. That is David Kane's vision for the royal game -- a sure way to kill chess promotion. GM Hans Ree noted that any self-respecting young intellectual will not stand for the humiliation of participating in senseless drug testing. His point, which our Kane could not plumb, is that men of mind take the search for truth seriously, even in a closed system such as chess. Caissa may not command the ultimate infinitudes of the major arts, but its greatest partisans have always demanded freedom to pursue their star. True, the demands differed in moral content -- a Botvinnik essentially forcing his compatriots to give him a second chance in the 1941 Soviet Absolute Championship; a Bobby Fischer choosing when and with whom he would play; an Alexander Alekhine analyzing every position to death, looking and sometimes discovering unexpected ideas. Men of mind, as Solzhenitsyn has noted, inherently resent participating in "the lie." In the case of drug testing, men of mind are asked not only to participate in a physical command -- but, still worse, a physical command that all of us recognize as irrational (there is no drug problem in chess) and based on power politics. Such was Ree's point. It is a point that a controller such as David Kane both resents as effete intellectuality and hates as an expression of the ceaseless human striving for freedom and truth. It would appear that in Greg Kennedy, David Kane has found a soulmate. What a soul! What a mate! Larry Evans' column in magazines and newspapers are an enormous success for one reason: readers enjoy him and learn from his experiences. His books are best-sellers, some even considered classics, in our little world of chess. We have noted before that in every Chess Life survey ever conducted, GM Evans scored at or near the top. For a while, he and Andy Soltis traded places in the surveys for the gold medal. For deacdes he was still one of the two key adornments to the magazine, in the views of thousands of readers who answered surveys. David Kane hates the above facts. So does our Greg. They really do. Mr. Kane also evidently dislikes social freedom. He can't stand it, in truth. Readers who have gone through his work here can judge for themselves. Possibly the most fascinating facet of the battle over drug testing in chess is how it draws a line between types of people -- though not quite the same line that W. S. Gilbert suggested in his rhyme, "Every little boy and girl alive/Is born a little liberal or conservative." With a long "i" in "conserative." Yours, Larry Parr David Kane wrote: > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:093f1293-53f5-4bc6-98ae-72218a12ae13@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > It seems that the Evans ratpack wants to argue against > > drug-testing, yet every attempt I have yet seen falls flat > > on account of their inability to think rationally. It's the > > same old story of carefully selecting a few quotes with > > which to attack FIDE, but being utterly incapable of > > putting together a convincing case; it always ends the > > same way, too, with ad hominem being generously doled > > out for any who dare point out the gaping holes. Sadly, I > > have little doubt that a much better case /could/ be made, > > if only the paranoid delusionals and other wannabe- > > advocates did not always so clumsily get in the way. > > This is correct. To reject Parr's juvenile > arguments is not to favor needless drug testing. > Predictably, Parr has yet to explain how > something like, say, receiving a blood transfusion > before a bike race is an example of mankind's > cherished "spontaneity". But then clarity of > thought and expression is not exactly a Parr forte. > > It's also more than a little ironic that someone > who claims to favor "spontaneity" would be > a defender of author GM Larry Evans, the USCF's > very own apparatchik-for-life whose career for > the past several decades has consisted of recycling > old stories from the 50's and 60's. This recycling > technique has been adopted by Parr himself for > rgcp, where he posts the same dishonest > and flawed arguments, verbatim, over and over > and over.       Date: 27 Nov 2007 14:26:38 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests -- speculation On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:38:40 -0800, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >Greetings friends, > >Let me throw in a bit of speculation from an unexpected direction. > >K Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechnology," had interesting >predictions that bear on this subject. >( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler ) > >People have guessed that it might take 50 years for nanotechnology to >develop to the point where the following is possible. That was in the >late 1980s. > >Dr. Drexler projected that we would at some point have molecular-sized, >self-replicating super-computers. He also projected that we would have >molecular-sized, self-replicating injectable "hospitals." > >The chess connection is interesting. How are we going to check to see >if a contestant shot up a few thousand nano-super-computers and >nano-drug-manufacture-plants before a competition? > >There is an obvious answer... FIDE will have to inject each contestant >with nano-investigator-regulator-bots before each competition! At that point, they'll probably be mandatory. Just like laptops in college. Cyborgs are good. Ask Help Bot.         Date: 29 Nov 2007 21:21:18 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 29, 9:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > Possibly the most fascinating facet of the battle > over drug testing in chess is how it draws a line > between types of people -- though not quite the same > line that W. S. Gilbert suggested in his rhyme, "Every > little boy and girl alive/Is born a little liberal or > conservative." With a long "i" in "conserative." I think you are misremembering Private Willis' song that opens Act II of Iolanthe. The quotation runs: I often think it's comical/ Fa lal lal How Nature always does contrive/ Fa lal lal Every boy and every girl/ that's born into the world alive/ Is either a little Liberal/ or else a little Conservative. http://math.boisestate.edu/GaS/iolanthe/web_op/iol14.html And the complete text: When all night long a chap remains On sentry-go, to chase monotony He exercises of his brains, That is, assuming that he's got any. Though never nurtured in the lap Of luxury, yet I admonish you, I am an intellectual chap, And think of things that would astonish you. I often think it's comical - Fal, lal, la! How Nature always does contrive - Fal, lal, la! That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! Fal, lal, la! When in that House M.P.'s divide, If they've a brain and cerebellum, too, They've got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to. But then the prospect of a lot Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity, All thinking for themselves, is what No man can face with equanimity. Then let's rejoice with loud Fal la - Fal la la! That Nature always does contrive - Fal lal la! That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! Fal lal la! Sorry to correct you, Larry, but I take my G & S seriously.         Date: 29 Nov 2007 20:34:41 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 29, 9:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > In the case of drug testing, men of mind are > asked not only to participate in a physical command -- > but, still worse, a physical command that all of us > recognize as irrational (there is no drug problem in > chess) and based on power politics. If I am reading this correctly, the real issue here is that a few FIDE officials exert power over even the most arrogant of GMs. This reminds me of Gary Kasparov's misadventures, his formation of one organization after another in search of a dictatorial control to match that of the evil scum who rule FIDE. It's an ego-stroking thing. > Larry Evans' column in magazines and newspapers > are an enormous success for one reason: readers enjoy him > and learn from his experiences. His books are best-sellers, > some even considered classics, in our little world of chess. While many enjoy reading about the political side of chess, there are plenty of others who disagree with GM Evans' very biased views, or who are more interested in improving their game. (Unfortunately, after some painful experiences in which impudent weakies pinpointed analytical errors by the huffy oldster, that part of his column was discontinued.) > We have noted before that in every Chess Life > survey ever conducted So long ago! As pedant Edward Winter has pointed out, more recently Mr. Evans work has gone downhill to the point where he cannot keep his facts straight, and often makes embarrassing gaffes like the ones he pinpointed in his vicious article: The Facts About Larry Evans. > GM Evans scored at or near the > top. For a while, he and Andy Soltis traded places in > the surveys for the gold medal. By strange coincidence, there two also had the most space in the magazine, and the most leeway to write about whatever they wanted. Too bad for the likes of GM Pal Benko, who was stuck toward the back and forced to write about the part that every duffer most dreads; or that guy -- what was his name? -- who had a small slot devoted only to chess problems, also hidden toward the back of the magazine. (But before anyone calls me biased, let me point out that the letters to the editor were nearer the front, maybe.) > For deacdes he was > still one of the two key adornments to the magazine, in > the views of thousands of readers who answered surveys. I want a *fair* comparison: let's say that all these guys get rotated around, trading jobs for a year or two -- THEN we take another survey. Whaddayasay? And for a control, let Sam Sloan and IM Innes have a shot; let them in on the rotation, so we can see if the insiders can compete with outside competition. (I can't wait to see LE try to take on endgames... .) -- help bot         Date: 27 Nov 2007 15:33:33 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests -- speculation Mike Murray wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:38:40 -0800, "J.D. Walker" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings friends, >> >> Let me throw in a bit of speculation from an unexpected direction. >> >> K Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechnology," had interesting >> predictions that bear on this subject. >> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler ) >> >> People have guessed that it might take 50 years for nanotechnology to >> develop to the point where the following is possible. That was in the >> late 1980s. >> >> Dr. Drexler projected that we would at some point have molecular-sized, >> self-replicating super-computers. He also projected that we would have >> molecular-sized, self-replicating injectable "hospitals." >> >> The chess connection is interesting. How are we going to check to see >> if a contestant shot up a few thousand nano-super-computers and >> nano-drug-manufacture-plants before a competition? >> >> There is an obvious answer... FIDE will have to inject each contestant >> with nano-investigator-regulator-bots before each competition! > > At that point, they'll probably be mandatory. Just like laptops in > college. Cyborgs are good. Ask Help Bot. Even if this seems far-fetched, consider the following possibilities that seem much more realistic. In the comments below the term 'computer' may also be construed to include miniaturized communication devices. 1) Wearable computers. 2) Insertable computers e.g. suppositories, ear plugs etc 3) Prosthetic computers 4) Implantable computers e.g. pace-maker-like etc. If these become areas of real concern at chess tournaments, drug testing will be the least of our problems. There will have to be full strip searches. Body cavity searches. X-ray examination. Full search of all clothing and accessories. Examination of all prosthetic appendages. Cloning and identity theft may also become issues. Who is really playing? Each player will need a full set of official documentation to prove who they really are as well as extensive DNA testing results. Possibly a permanent bar code on the forehead would be wise... Heh heh. Welcome to the future gang! How would you like this kind of world Mr. Parr? :^) -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 03 Dec 2007 06:35:22 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests GILBERT & SULLIVAN >Fa la la, la la la la.> -- help bot Neil, ... if we may or may not, this once. Do you feel in the least dismayed? We feel a trifle depressed. You quoted the precise lines from Gilbert that we had earlier paraphrased. And, to be sure, although no one here imagined Greg Kennedy to be a literary lion, even you must concede that his critique -- one supposes that such is what he meant his prattling to be -- was a peat bog of mired inanity. We are certain that you understood Gilbert's point to be a comment on human nature, indeed perhaps on nothing more than its velleities, as reckoned by a clever, classically liberal Victorian wordsmith. Still, how does one go about trying to explain to a callow Kennedy the assumptions of that wonderful 19th century world? As some day it may happen that a rectum must be found, we've got a little list of people who'll not be missed and are best when not around or, mayhap, placed firmly under ground. There is that Indiana man/ And others from his clan./ So let's hatch a plan, okay yah?/ To dispatch him to far off Numidia./ Scholars who know their Hannibal/ Can find him a famished cannibal./ And Fiddle-faddle-fiddle-dee-dee/ That will be the end of our Greg Kennedy. One wonders what Greg would make of Max Beerbohm's Zuleika Dobson, possibly the most elegantly fastidious literary work from The Proud Tower that was pre-World War I Europe? Yours, Larry Parr --- [email protected] wrote: >help bot View profile > >More options Nov 29, 10:24 pm >Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, >rec.games.chess.misc >From: help bot <[email protected]> >Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:24:00 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests > >Reply           Date: 30 Nov 2007 04:18:23 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 5:53 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > >Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two > > position that Frtiz couldn't solve.> -- Phil Innes > > >Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in Forsyth notation. -- Mike Murray > > Don't know about the mate-in-2 but here is a position that stymied > FRITZ in 2005, though programs today can probably solve it easily. > Maybe there's even a cook. > > Evans On Chess, October 2005 (page 44) > > HAVE A GOOD KNIGHT > > Ludwig Arndt > San Jose, California > > Q. In a lecture several years ago at the Far West Open in Reno you > showed a problem that FRITZ was unable to solve and [you] woke up with > the solution requiring multiple knight promotions. Could you give it > again? Who composed it? > > A. I don't know who composed this amazing problem. > > wKe6,Nb4,Be1,Pb3,e7 > > bKa7,Nb5,h6,Bg4,Pa6,d3,f3,f5 > > White to play and win > > SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6 > Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg4 Nf7 11 Bh4 Nc3 12 Be1 > and Bxc3 mate. That's not even close to a match ("mate in two"), but anyway, there are some special versions of chess programs which are designed to sniff out mates; however, I wonder if all of them consider under-promotions, since in the old days that would have put a huge drag on calculation speed. Also note that the answer was requested in Forsyth notation, but a miss (by a country mile) was instead delivered in plain old style English text that even I could read. In any case, the point was that IM Innes is grossly mistaken, as usual; there is no legal mate-in-two position which Fritz cannot solve, given several days to ponder. -- help bot           Date: 30 Nov 2007 03:20:09 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests TYPO SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6 Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg5 (NOT Bg4) Nf7 11 Bh4 Nc3 12 Be1 and Bxc3 mate.             Date: 30 Nov 2007 10:14:28 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:20:09 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > >TYPO > >SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6 >Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg5 (NOT Bg4) Nf7 11 Bh4 >Nc3 12 Be1 >and Bxc3 mate. > But doesn't 4 ... Kb4 monkey wrench it (although White still has a won game) ?           Date: 30 Nov 2007 02:53:35 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests FRITZ COULDN'T SOLVE IT THEN >Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > -- Phil Innes >Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in Forsyth notation. -- Mike Murray Don't know about the mate-in-2 but here is a position that stymied FRITZ in 2005, though programs today can probably solve it easily. Maybe there's even a cook. Evans On Chess, October 2005 (page 44) HAVE A GOOD KNIGHT Ludwig Arndt San Jose, California Q. In a lecture several years ago at the Far West Open in Reno you showed a problem that FRITZ was unable to solve and [you] woke up with the solution requiring multiple knight promotions. Could you give it again? Who composed it? A. I don't know who composed this amazing problem. wKe6,Nb4,Be1,Pb3,e7 bKa7,Nb5,h6,Bg4,Pa6,d3,f3,f5 White to play and win SOLUTION: 1 Nc6+ Kb7 2 Na5+ Kb6 3 Bf2+ Kxa5 4 e8=Q Nc7+ 5 Kd6 Ne8+ 6 Kc5 d2 7 Bd4! d1=N 8 Be5! f2 9 Bf4! f1=N 10 Bg4 Nf7 11 Bh4 Nc3 12 Be1 and Bxc3 mate.           Date: 30 Nov 2007 00:56:41 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 2:48 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > > Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing > >is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players? > > Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big > Nurse watches. Generally speaking, a pee-cup is handed over and you are instructed to enter a private restroom, later emerging after handing the now-filled cup over, through a slot in the wall. It is revealed that yes, like all mammals, you urinate, and if this is too "embarrassing" to handle, perhaps therapy is in order. "Um, no illegal drug use detected fella, but did you know you have kidney stones the size of peas, and are about two months pregnant?" -- help bot             Date: 30 Nov 2007 07:59:27 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:56:41 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >On Nov 30, 2:48 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing >> >is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players? >> Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big >> Nurse watches. > Generally speaking, a pee-cup is handed over >and you are instructed to enter a private restroom, >later emerging after handing the now-filled cup >over, through a slot in the wall. It is revealed that >yes, like all mammals, you urinate, and if this is >too "embarrassing" to handle, perhaps therapy is >in order. Generally speaking, you're evidently referring to the experience with your family doc, you know when you bring the cup back from the private room and he asks, "now would you like the blue glove or the pink?". But, no, this ain't the way a drug test is done. Not since folks started bringing their own bottles (supplied earlier by a "clean" buddy) to the party, carried low so it has the proper temperature. No, somebody watches. And they watch closely. Anatomically correct vinyl replacements for the personal bottle are available. You think I'm kidding? Are things that sheltered in Ohio? OK, read this: http://www.ureasample.com/pass-drug-test/24-hour-urine-test.shtml           Date: 30 Nov 2007 00:50:22 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 2:42 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two > >position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > > Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in > Forsyth notation. Here it is, in archaic Andean, just as nearly-an-IM Innes sent it to me: -------------- Rouge: Cezar de squar nthnyetfirth de la Dame ver sevnyact cesar Twain Gnight por favor le nyxt squar pa und ver severales peons, squars normales Ebon: Cezar de squar bak-ryght cornero Ebon de zug, le finito-en-twain -------------- -- help bot           Date: 29 Nov 2007 22:24:00 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 12:21 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > Every boy and every girl/ > that's born into the world alive/ > Is either a little Liberal/ > or else a little Conservative. All black or white -- no shades of gray? What simpletons! What mindless hay. When queried doth Republicans say, that all against them be Democrats today! And when narrow minded Donkeys bray, they too appear to think that way -- but it's just reversed, or so they say. Such narrowness of mind betrays, a gaping breach in cerebellum-rays. Forsooth! Both sides have gone astray. For life is quite filled with shades of gray. With things which be not here nor there, which exist in states of "everywhere". Fa la la, la la la la. -- help bot           Date: 27 Nov 2007 16:44:25 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests -- speculation On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:33:33 -0800, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >Even if this seems far-fetched, consider the following possibilities >that seem much more realistic. In the comments below the term >'computer' may also be construed to include miniaturized communication >devices. > >1) Wearable computers. >2) Insertable computers e.g. suppositories, ear plugs etc >3) Prosthetic computers >4) Implantable computers e.g. pace-maker-like etc. > >If these become areas of real concern at chess tournaments, drug testing >will be the least of our problems. There will have to be full strip >searches. Body cavity searches. X-ray examination. Full search of all >clothing and accessories. Examination of all prosthetic appendages. I think these *are* real concerns right now. The cheats that have been caught have shown a mix of technical cleverness with stupidity. The guy with the communications device in his ear, for example -- if he'd had that repackaged with something that looked like a real hearing aid, he'd have passed. Aren't large class prizes wonderful? >Possibly a permanent bar code on the forehead would be wise... "666", Reverend. Ya got to have it to play.   Date: 27 Nov 2007 06:09:50 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too > >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > >Western democracies. > > >Phil Innes > > Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running it or get out.     Date: 27 Nov 2007 09:30:39 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:2e922d81-f621-425a-bc54-04a8a023a4ba@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they >> >too >> >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the >> >Western democracies. >> >> >Phil Innes >> >> Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil. > > That's three of us. I recall telling John Fernandez back in 2002 that > my position on FIDE was simple. USCF should be very active in running > it or get out. John Fernandez used Ritalin. He himself would be banned from competition ;) Phil Innes       Date: 29 Nov 2007 07:05:44 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests STILL IN THE SIXTH GRADE? > Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting > from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on > and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates. > Their crime is that they were far better than he is or > will ever be. > . > Yours, Larry Parr Once again, the ravings of a madman who seems /obsessed/ with my person, and who is incapable of answering reasonable questions. As someone else observed, the level of understanding is reminiscent of a sixth grader. Take a look at this rant, which desperately crafts a silly straw man for its irrational author to knock over: ------------------- > OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS > If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of > computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the > greater threat in chess competition, now that computers > have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre GMs. > -- help bot > Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on. Please note: > there is no "drug problem" in chess. And, to be sure, > he offers us more of his GM-spleenis envy. When > reading his posting, we again vel at how he must > be seething. He wanted to be one thing in life, but he > turned out another. Greg can never forgive GMs and > those who are well read. > If GMs are, then, "mediocre," what does that > make our Greg? A woodpusher duffer, a huffer and puffer? > puffer? But we hear not him describing himself in such terms. ------------------ Apart from the fact that the author of that rant is clearly a paranoid delusional who sees scary monsters at every turn, we have the issue of his irrational fear that GM Larry Evans is under constant attack -- from what they both wish to perceive as his "vast inferiors". No doubt Mr. Parr's own lack of grand-masterly chess ability has escaped their mutual intellectual grasp, such that it is; but far more worrisome is the inherent idea that all grandmasters must be created equal, hence an imagined attack on one automatically morphs into an attack on Larry Evans. Nothing could be further from reality; in fact, there are strong grandmasters, and then there are weak ones. A few GMs have found that they can no longer maintain an SM USCF rating, dropping into the very same range as that which Mr. Parr so deeply dreads: the 2300+ area which has long been another of his many irrational obsessions. No matter how weak a player may eventually become, he keeps the FIDE IGM title just the same. The best human grandmasters are still able to cope with Fritz -- which is not to say they can win a set match, but rather, they do not feel outclassed until the inevitable tactical slip-and-fall. The bungles I've detected in the analysis of average or mediocre GMs -- priily in Chess Lies magazine -- have nothing to do with the analysis or ability of LE, since he only writes about politics these days. In fact, the closest one may come to debunking any piece of recent analysis by LE would be purely on the basis of common sense, pointing out the many books which are filled with blunders by the famous masters, to show a fatal flaw in his logic -- not in his chess. I could point to one recent error, but again, that would hardly do justice to the legendary five-time U.S. champ. He was, after all, making a point, not seriously making an attempt to "find the best move". It reminds me of the famous letter from Bobby Fischer, in which LE printed an offhand comment but then BF wrote in to point out some subtlety in the position, to avenge a valid criticism of his actions. Ironically, it is now Larry Evans himself, along with his drones, who can not seem to stand the intellectual heat of constructive criticism. The position I am thinking of is the one where GM Evans whips off a comment that "nine out of ten grandmasters" would do such and such, because that's what he would do without even thinking. But that's just the problem! By "not thinking" the old lion overlooked subtle possibilities which are deeply hidden in the woodwork; possibilities which players like Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer might very well spot (not to mention Fritz). It seems that the Evans ratpack wants to argue against drug-testing, yet every attempt I have yet seen falls flat on account of their inability to think rationally. It's the same old story of carefully selecting a few quotes with which to attack FIDE, but being utterly incapable of putting together a convincing case; it always ends the same way, too, with ad hominem being generously doled out for any who dare point out the gaping holes. Sadly, I have little doubt that a much better case /could/ be made, if only the paranoid delusionals and other wannabe- advocates did not always so clumsily get in the way. I might even make an attempt myself, just to show how it can be done, but I have no motivation, not being an illegal drug user, nor having ever felt "embarrassed" by the results of a urine test, nor having ever caused any suspicion on account of superlative chess results. If anything, organizers and directors might wonder what performance *hindering* drugs I might be taking. In one classic case of chess blindness, I overlooked a mate-in-three which was pointed out to me by a complete duffer after the game. -- help bot       Date: 29 Nov 2007 06:11:40 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 29, 8:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS > > Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting > from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on > and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates. > Their crime is that they were far better than he is or > will ever be. > . > Yours, Larry Parr Thanks, Larry. I had trouble believing what I was seeing the first time. Does help-bot really believe GM Evans' games are "hard to find?"   Date: 27 Nov 2007 05:19:37 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests BOTSTER GETS SOMETHING RIGHT! <But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing will not go over well in the USA, since it could reduce tournament participation significantly; that in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.) > -- help bot (Greg Kennedy) Bill Goichberg is quoted in "The Case Against Drug Testing in U.S. Chess" (pages 82-98)). In my view, this chapter alone is worth the price of admission to THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by Larry Evans. Here is an excerpt: WHAT BETTER WAY TO KILL CHESS? What will be the reaction of American chess organizers to the imposition of costly drug testing and to the prospect of losing tens of thousands of tournament entrants who wish to have nothing to do with signing commitments to take whatever drug tests that the FIDE Medical Commission may elect to impose? What will those players, who look forward to certain major tournaments as annual vacations, decide to do if even their hope to recoup a portion of their expenditure by winning a class prize becomes dependent on passing a drug test or several drug tests during a single competition? Will they continue to attend tournaments in which they could forfeit class prizes or have to pay for expensive drug tests before they can get prize money? Bill Goichberg, America's largest tournament organizer, writes the following: "When FIDE issued its startling pronouncement at the end of 2000 that, with about one week notice, all FIDE rated tournaments were required to use the 'new FIDE time control,' I received several emails from players asking if CCA tournaments advertised as FIDE rated would use the new control. I replied that I didn't think it was really required and that if it was, we still wouldn't use it. Likewise, let me assure everyone that there will never be 'anti-doping tests' at any CCA tournament. We will hold our [tournaments as we] always have, and submit them to FIDE for ratings and sometimes title norms because there is nowhere else for players to go who wish to become GMs r IMs, but we fully expect our events to be rejected by FIDE within a year or two because we will not accept their control." Under FIDE regulations, the USCF could face penalties for continuing to do business with Mr. Goichberg and other tournament organizers, who understand that fast time limits and drug testing spell business death for them. We do not believe these organizers will pass quietly into the sweet night of income oblivion. They will establish a competing rating system instead. SCHISMS BREWING? There will be numerous absurdities. "As a grand climax," writes Mr. Goichberg without (in truth) much necessary foresight, "perhaps at the closing ceremony [of a given tournament] the official FIDE antidoping service will announce that the GM who apparently won the event has been disqualified for puffing on his asthma steroid inhaler." Yeah, it will happen. Lawsuits? Numerous American antidiscrimination laws are there to be violated. "Any competitor," says the fine print on the FIDE Medical Commission site, "who is a Diabetic using Insulin, those with Exercise Induced Bronchospasm (Asthma), or a Cardiac condition requiring Beta- Blocker medications, should file the following form prior to competition with the FIDE Medical Secretariat Office." Tournament directors will need to have legally vetted legal disclaimers for all players to sign and will require legal advice to establish elaborate procedures for guarding against legal actions from outraged tournament customers. What will happen if one of the tournament assistants at, say, the U.S. Open fails to cover a legal base involving an asthmatic, who suffers an attack after an intrusive, nerve-wracking blood test -- say, a second or third such test during a given competition? Impossible? Read Article 1.6 of FIDE's antidoping regulations. With all the lawyers, forms, tests, etc., tournament costs will skyrocket and so will entry fees. As for the truly vicious Soviet absurdity of press "Commissars," this self-discrediting idea could only come from FIDE and its dictator-president. help bot wrote: > On Nov 26, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too > > have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > > Western democracies. > > Riiiight: Americans need England to lead them, not > the other way 'round. LOL > Face it: Tony Blair towed a cow behind him, and it > belonged to the George Bush ranch. All these two > fishermen ever managed to catch was seaweed/flak > for their troubles. > > Another problem is that, as crack investigative > reporter(?!!) Sam Sloan has pointed out, the USCF > is hardly a democracy; more like it is ruled by the > few, and always has been. Names like Goichberg > resurface again and again in complaints that a > single vote by an outsider has no impact, no real > meaning. Apparently, both SS and Lev Alburt got > precisely the same impression, at very different > times, while on the board. In short, being a > "democracy" is of no account; what matters is > the position taken by those few in control, the > Goichbergs, the Bushs and Blairs. > > But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing > will not go over well in the USA, since it could > reduce tournament participation significantly; that > in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it > hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill > Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.) > > > -- help bot   Date: 27 Nov 2007 01:40:22 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 8:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it > >> was most a bullying tactic. > > >two persons > > What were they taking? (I might want to try it) Focus Factor, plus eating fish twice a week and getting plenty of B-vitamins. One player gained a hundred points a month on a strict diet of spinach and seaweed, but soon died when he unwittingly ingested a baby giant squid, which decisively counterattacked in the center. -- help bot   Date: 27 Nov 2007 01:35:32 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too > have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the > Western democracies. Riiiight: Americans need England to lead them, not the other way 'round. LOL Face it: Tony Blair towed a cow behind him, and it belonged to the George Bush ranch. All these two fishermen ever managed to catch was seaweed/flak for their troubles. Another problem is that, as crack investigative reporter(?!!) Sam Sloan has pointed out, the USCF is hardly a democracy; more like it is ruled by the few, and always has been. Names like Goichberg resurface again and again in complaints that a single vote by an outsider has no impact, no real meaning. Apparently, both SS and Lev Alburt got precisely the same impression, at very different times, while on the board. In short, being a "democracy" is of no account; what matters is the position taken by those few in control, the Goichbergs, the Bushs and Blairs. But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing will not go over well in the USA, since it could reduce tournament participation significantly; that in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.) -- help bot     Date: 27 Nov 2007 09:23:57 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 26, 4:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too >> have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the >> Western democracies. > > Riiiight: Americans need England to lead them, not > the other way 'round. LOL Which issue are you addressing: Chess? Slavery? Universal Sufferage? Confronting Hitler? You may know that the head of the commonwealth chess association, Nigel Short, has recently challenged Fide on a number of activities, and some non-activities [like withdrawing support monies for chess from African countries where they are most needed] and the ECF have told Fide they cannot call him before their tribunal since all he said was true! > Face it: Tony Blair towed a cow behind him, and it > belonged to the George Bush ranch. All these two > fishermen ever managed to catch was seaweed/flak > for their troubles. Tony Blair is no longer prime minister, and the current one is notably more independent and taking 'other' action. > Another problem is that, as crack investigative > reporter(?!!) Sam Sloan has pointed out, the USCF > is hardly a democracy; more like it is ruled by the > few, and always has been. Names like Goichberg > resurface again and again in complaints that a > single vote by an outsider has no impact, no real > meaning. Apparently, both SS and Lev Alburt got > precisely the same impression, at very different > times, while on the board. In short, being a > "democracy" is of no account; what matters is > the position taken by those few in control, the > Goichbergs, the Bushs and Blairs. > > But don't get your panties in a wad; drug-testing > will not go over well in the USA, since it could > reduce tournament participation significantly; that > in turn would hit the powers-that-be right where it > hurts most: in the pocketbook. (The name Bill > Goichberg leaps quickly to mind.) You are not a perceptive politician. If there is suitable recompense for /organisers/, then their will be testing. According to 'representative Kelleher, the USCf would resent any testing on American soil, AND ALSO, any testing of American citizens elsewhere. Of course, this is no new stance, and has been in place for years - that is - the rhetoric of it has. But in the [was it?] penultimate round of the Olympiad, Polgar was tested. Her choice was to resent the test and sacrifice the team, or permit it. USCF made not a peep (to pun) then, nor raised the issue since. What is necessary at USCF are standards, not personality driven decisions. Since so many problems are entirely predictable, the very lack of public debate and standards provide the real answer. Drug testing in the USA will be decided upon without any real dialog taking place, by people who cannot be said to be dissinterested parties, and who play real-politik with it - which is to say, they perform the politics of convenience to themselves. The trick with politicians always is to ignore what they /say/ they will do, and concentrate on what they /actually/ do. Phil Innes > -- help bot > >   Date: 26 Nov 2007 21:35:32 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED > > > Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) > > > Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United > > States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for > > those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention > > on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely > > reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom > > Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial > > blackmail of unruly players. > > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had > never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive > drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has > been done already? Just asking, not arguing. It doesn't even need to be FIDE. A local politico could doctor the sample. FIDE would merely need to endorse the result. Perhaps they will use the same French lab that tested Floyd Landis' urine and found a drug that cyclists don't use?   Date: 26 Nov 2007 21:29:00 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 12:33 pm, johnny_t <[email protected] > wrote: > Taylor Kingston wrote: > > > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had > > never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive > > drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has > > been done already? Just asking, not arguing. > > There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de > France. > > There have been cases of drug use... And those have been keted to > prove that the entire program is good. > > There have also been some dodgy cases which have been counter keted > that the entire program is bad. The Floyd Landis fiasco is a good example of an athlete being sacrificed to protect corrupt sport-bureaucrats. > And now with Barry Bonds and ion Jone's case > <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4...> > > it would appear that the world will begin demanding more, not less drug > testing of its "heroes", regardless of the field. Which also means that > there will be an increase of cost, privacy invasion, and the ever > present spector of character assassination. > > And in chess where there is yet to be shown any drug use that is > decisive, and worse to participate in an event that doesn't accept > chess. All to feed a very expensive organization, more expensive than > the players themselves, to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.   Date: 26 Nov 2007 18:25:25 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) >Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has been done already? Just asking, not arguing. > -- Taylor Kingston Strange that friend Kingston has not heard the argument cited from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS. It is a very close relative to the one offered by GM Artur Yusupov for his opposition to drug testing. There is nothing a lawless outfit led by a thug like Ilyumzhinov won't do. As the rules are written, it would not require faking a drug test result to destroy a career. There are avenues for FIDE to raise the bar on unwanted players so that medical bills make it impractical to continue. The listing of possible tests by Stephen Press made it clear that thousands of dollars in medical bills can, in effect, be levied on players if the authorities so desire. Have tests yet been faked? It's the same kind of question that was asked when GM Evans and this writer predicted that out-of-competition testing was sure to come. We were told it couldn't happen here. America's FIDE hack Bill Kelleher, a lowball if ever there was one, tells us that this testing is only meant for a few players. Hah! If you want to understand what is coming in due time, just look at bicycle racing and other such sports. FIDE authorities hate the independence of chess players, and they intend to crack down hard when the time is ripe. But as GM Evans and I noted many times, the crackdown is a process, not an enactment. It has and will continue to take time. The goal is full compliance with WADA regs inside the chess community. Did anyone note the impossibly weak hope ofr Bill Kelleher that Americans won't be required to submit to drug testing at any time, any place, for any reason or, for that matter, no reason at all? Alas, we have a FIDE representative in America instead of an American representative in FIDE. From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Evans (page 112) Chess players are artists whose careers should not be left to the whims of bureaucrats, who live to control rather than to create....FIDE was created to unify people, not separate them. The FIDE of today is a ghastly perversion of its original ideal to show the world that chess is a universal tongue that can travel without passport across all borders. FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon, while real players struggle so hard. People might wonder why we need anything more than a chess board and a chess set. Yours, Larry Parr     Date: 27 Nov 2007 09:04:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests <[email protected] > wrote in message news:d81fe5c4-a042-49dc-99ad-601bc362c9ac@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM (Cont'd) > Did anyone note the impossibly weak hope ofr > Bill Kelleher that Americans won't be required to submit > to drug testing at any time, any place, for any reason > or, for that matter, no reason at all? Alas, we have > a FIDE representative in America instead of an American > representative in FIDE. Well yes! The outstanding omission made loudest noise. Why does USCF continuously appoint pro-drug testers to represent its anti-drug testing wishes? Of course this can only be a rhetorical question, since our 'representative' in Fide is not available to be questioned about his representation. A previous drug-testing pusher to occupy the post, Jim Eade, told anti-tester Seirawan to 'fuck off' - so I suppose that is the other pole-standard of representation and official debate, in contradistinction to silent treatment. Recently USCF board plus Bill Hall have declined to answer questions on any subject relating to their chess management activity - going back on their pre-election promise - not just to me, but to a panel of questioners who would 'submit' their questions in advance, in writing, and allow any reasonable amount of time for response. Looking back at the pre-election forecasts I note that the current VP Finance supported being /regularly/ interviewed by a panel, since it seemed a sensible way to communicate back and forth, and one not dominated by any singular view of journalist, or USCF official. Indeed, this would fix the situation where any board member could represent a minority-view of the board, not mentioning what the majority sense was. An anti-spin procedure, sensibly adopted elsewhere! Alas, Randy Bauer declared during the board meeting that what we write here is so much trash, while the yawning void of contentless conversation broadcast for all to see at that meeting, is surely indicative that no issue will be allowed to surface in public during the entirety current administration. Even Sam Sloan said that Paul Truong continuously stayed on topic, and tried to progress a useful issue - and I watched Bill Hall look to the President to see if he should chuckle more or less, while Randy at the far-end of the table was content to say what should not be discussed. zzzzzz > From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Evans (page 112) > > Chess players are artists whose careers should not be left > to the whims of bureaucrats, who live to control rather than to > create....FIDE was created to unify people, not separate them. > The FIDE of today is a ghastly perversion of its original ideal to > show the world that chess is a universal tongue that can travel > without passport across all borders. > > FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess > games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are > beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international > congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties > in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon, while real players > struggle so hard. People might wonder why we need anything > more than a chess board and a chess set. > > Yours, Larry Parr Perhaps I wrote here before what a Russian chess organiser wrote me about the system there - to paraphrase, 'these people have no skills or talents, so must content themselves with being "clever".' Phil Innes     Date: 26 Nov 2007 22:43:02 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:25:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: >FIDE politicians care more about power games than chess >games. But now their dirty little secret is out, and people are >beginning to wonder why we need all those huge international >congresses where FIDE hotshots attend lavish cocktail parties >in fancy hotel suites, like worms in the bacon, Don't forget the occasional Rolex.   Date: 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED > > Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) > > Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United > States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for > those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention > on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely > reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom > Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial > blackmail of unruly players. Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has been done already? Just asking, not arguing.     Date: 26 Nov 2007 16:22:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:997df7d8-d569-479f-ab67-37c704fba214@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED >> >> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) >> >> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United >> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for >> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention >> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely >> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom >> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial >> blackmail of unruly players. > > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had > never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive > drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has > been done already? Just asking, not arguing. Garry K showed up for a /secret/' meeting in London with Tarasov, a previous fixer for Gorbachev, and also present was the money interest. It was immediately clear that Kasparov would have nothing to do with Tarasov's ideas, not would any corpus of grandmasters, and the money left the meeting [1999] at the same time as Kasparov stood up. These are business angles on chess, not chessic ones. The 'money' was right to walk. Search in vain for any public reference to this encounter, since like all Fide business, it is conducted in deep secrecy. Phil Innes     Date: 26 Nov 2007 07:33:29 From: johnny_t Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Taylor Kingston wrote: > > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had > never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive > drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has > been done already? Just asking, not arguing. There is a lot of consternation by bicyclers and testing in the Tour de France. There have been cases of drug use... And those have been keted to prove that the entire program is good. There have also been some dodgy cases which have been counter keted that the entire program is bad. And now with Barry Bonds and ion Jone's case <http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43813 > it would appear that the world will begin demanding more, not less drug testing of its "heroes", regardless of the field. Which also means that there will be an increase of cost, privacy invasion, and the ever present spector of character assassination. And in chess where there is yet to be shown any drug use that is decisive, and worse to participate in an event that doesn't accept chess. All to feed a very expensive organization, more expensive than the players themselves, to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.       Date: 27 Nov 2007 06:53:54 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "johnny_t" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Taylor Kingston wrote: > >> >> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had >> never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive >> drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has >> been done already? Just asking, not arguing. <... > > it would appear that the world will begin demanding more, not less drug > testing of its "heroes", regardless of the field. Which also means that > there will be an increase of cost, privacy invasion, and the ever present > spector of character assassination. > > And in chess where there is yet to be shown any drug use that is decisive, > and worse to participate in an event that doesn't accept chess. All to > feed a very expensive organization, more expensive than the players > themselves, to solve a problem that doesn't even exist. An AP sports writer hit the subject of drug testing in Golf square on the head when he suggested that Tiger Woods alone be tested. If Tiger comes out clean, and he can do what he does without drugs... end of story! Phil Innes     Date: 26 Nov 2007 09:21:27 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: >On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED >> >> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) >> >> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United >> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for >> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention >> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely >> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom >> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial >> blackmail of unruly players. > > Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had >never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive >drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has >been done already? Just asking, not arguing. Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it was most a bullying tactic. BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless: "In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations, FIDE will introduce �out of competition� testing in 2008. This decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5 top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.". But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have no problem. Heh, heh, heh.       Date: 26 Nov 2007 16:43:40 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED >>> >>> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) >>> >>> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United >>> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for >>> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention >>> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely >>> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom >>> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial >>> blackmail of unruly players. >> >> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had >>never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive >>drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has >>been done already? Just asking, not arguing. > > Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it > was most a bullying tactic. two persons > BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless: Bill Kelleher is as you say, not living nor dead - despite the rift between USCF and Fide - and USCF's own motion to fight drug testing, here you have the anodyne reporting of someone, as if he did not represent USA > "In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations, > FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008. This > decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately > the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5 > top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be > tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I > think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to > be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in > the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.". > > But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have > no problem. Heh, heh, heh. Fide is fucking terrified that if they push this issue, USA will baulk at further affiliation with them. In England it is a more exacerbated situation still, in the matter of Nigel Short, who the ECF back completely. If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the Western democracies. Phil Innes         Date: 29 Nov 2007 01:38:47 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 29, 3:13 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred > soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever > contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch > grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the > FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw > it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will > meekly submit to these senseless humiliations." Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players? ------ Imagine if you will that a psychotic tournament director (you may know a few) one day shows up before an event insisting that all players either join the state chess association or else they can't play. Now some, like me, will be well aware of the sordid history of what happens to membership fees purportedly earked for the publication of a state magazine, while others will have no idea. In such a case, it makes sense to expect that I might be upset, /perhaps/ even humiliated by such an intrusion, but what about others? I can't see it as anything but irrelevant to them -- until later, when they discover the truth for themselves, after the fact. In much the same way, this drug-testing business is something of an irrelevant bother for those who have no fear of "detection" of wrongdoing. I don't see where the purported embarrassment comes in, except for drug users who fear their illegal activities will be exposed. As for "young intellectuals" being defined as those who use illegal drugs, I find that hilarious! The more so when you consider that the height of such activity may have occurred (in the USA) during the 1960s, which would make a lot of these folks a tad older than "young", and certainly no more intellectual than their drug-free counterparts. > "The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is > 'Faster, Stronger, Higher.' -- not Cleverer," noted an outraged > amateur. Why is he outraged? What emotion motivates such a powerful reaction -- FEAR? > "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic > performance, while at the same time often harming the athletes who > take them. No such problem has been established in chess This looks like advocacy for reactive management. I have a good deal of experience with that sort of thinking, yet *proactive* is undoubtedly superior. Granted, in this case both proactive and reactive are equally useless, since the management in question is that of FIDE. : >( > and chess > players are therefore properly suspicious and even resentful when told > they have to be drug tested. Hardly. When I am accused of playing like Fritz, I take it as a huge compliment; and were I to be accused of taking st pills, I would likely have the very same reaction. Now, someone who might take strong exception is AK--on blueberry yogurt. > I have no sympathy with the people who > claim they are fighting to get chess into the Olympics; and I have > actual animus toward officials who try to impose > controls on chess with the excuse that the Olympics requires drug > testing." Who cares? One person's irrational emotions are of no import; nobody cares about one man's feelings of sympathy or anger toward a chess organization. Let's try to focus on why it is alleged that the drug testing itself will promote feelings of "embarrassment" for all "self-respecting" chess players. I find that hard to believe; in fact, the pro-drug-use argument seems flawed in general. Take tobacco, for instance; for a *very long time* peer pressure and keting tricks pushed people to inhale poisonous fumes voluntarily, yet in the end it became clear who were the real intellectuals, and who the mere pretenders. And even if what the ratpack is smoking now is not quite so destructive, it still is a foreign substance and along with the desired chemicals there will of course be burnt paper fumes; try brownies instead. And stop getting so stressed out over everything; remember-- chill out; everything's like cool, daddy-o. You're too cool to get caught. -- chillin' bot           Date: 29 Nov 2007 23:48:11 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:38:47 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Where is it explained exactly in what way drug testing >is "humiliating" to non-drug-using chess players? Yeah, a lot of folks probably *like* to pee in a bottle while Big Nurse watches. > try brownies instead. You, of course, refer to the Alice B Toklas variety.         Date: 29 Nov 2007 00:13:29 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests FIDE GOES BESERK Although chess is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, that doesn't stop the bureaucrats from imposing their silly regulations. "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug testing will not be able to play chess," wrote Dr. Stephen Press, vice- chairman of FIDE's medical commission. "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will meekly submit to these senseless humiliations." "The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is 'Faster, Stronger, Higher.' -- not Cleverer," noted an outraged amateur. "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic performance, while at the same time often harming the athletes who take them. No such problem has been established in chess, and chess players are therefore properly suspicious and even resentful when told they have to be drug tested. I have no sympathy with the people who claim they are fighting to get chess into the Olympics; and I have actual animus toward officials who try to impose controls on chess with the excuse that the Olympics requires drug testing." From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 80) David Kane wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:0c6c93a3-8749-40dd-9a36-3669271fae67@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > SIX GRADERS > > > > <I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem to have about a 6th > > grade understanding of drug testing. Though that may be unfair to 6th > > graders.>-- David Kane > > > > I take it, then, that David Kane will not be adding his name to my > > petition. > > > > Since at the moment only about 80 of the world's top players will be > > affected by out-of-competition testing, GM Larry Evans has submitted > > the issue to the governing board of Association of Chess > > Professionals. What will come of it remains to be seen. > > I certainly hope they have something better to do than > pontificate on imaginary problems (drug use, drug testing, > alien abduction etc.) It would be a welcome surprise if > they were proactive in dealing with actual threats to > the game's integrity - e.g. computer cheating. I am > not optimistic.         Date: 28 Nov 2007 22:29:47 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 28, 11:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS Methinks she doth protest too much. Forsooth, the minions of LE spy "attacks" everywhere -- even where they ain't. GM Evans has long been retired from active play, and besides that, his own games are relatively few and hard to find. However, the pages of Chess Lies are filled with games by other GMs, termed mediocre on account of their revealing serious errors, upon inspection by Fritz. The harsh fact is that today, a few top programs have established a moat, a sizable gap betwixt themselves and the average or mediocre human grandmaster. In fact, even some GMs who are wont to be boastful of their own imagined achievements will, as a matter of routine, now resort to the use of Fritz (or Rybka, or Zap) in their published annotations (Susan Polgar, for instance). Not having any chess board which will fit on the counter top where my laptop computer sits, I find it handy to play over these annotated games in Chess Lies magazine on my computer. One big advantage is that, when the article says a line is no good, I can quickly verify this (or refute it) by activating Fritz. But more often, it is errors of omission that are uncovered, grotesque misstatements along strategical lines which Fritz has no difficulty in objectively debunking. Truth be told, I have no games of Larry Evans to examine with Fritz; the five-time U.S. champ is nearly unique in having almost no published games, only diagrammed positions to look over, such as his amazing escape versus Sammy Reshevsky in a position "nine out of ten grandmasters would have resigned immediately". (All I know is his results were stellar, but unfortunately he was overshadowed by the untimely appearance of Bobby Fischer, right in his own back yard.) Just as when Edward Winter obsesses over a small spelling error or wrong date carelessly published by the five-time U.S. champ, Mr. Parr seems to go berserk at any comment he might somehow be able to misconstrue as an "attack" on his idol. It's a sad thing to watch -- the pedant because he is unaware of his own pettiness, and the paranoid delusional, in that he thinks he sees scary monsters everywhere. ---- At the lower levels of play, I have later learned of or personally witnessed countless acts of cheating in chess; this is why I see the drug issue as relatively less important. No one I know of has swallowed a st pill after learning they are paired against say, Emory Tate, to equal the odds. Instead, a few unscrupulous types will more likely try and consult some "sworn enemy" of the tournament favorite, which is something of a hit-or-miss affair. The most likely outcome is a very difficult struggle, in which ET emerges victorious because the cheater is a hopeless patzer in a time scramble. LOL --- Obviously, my qualification of the term grandmaster was intended to convey the fact that a few world-class GMs can still hold their own, for instance, as seen in the famous match where GM Kramnik had outplayed one of the top programs only to toss his win away, then allow a mate-in-one. I count that as a fluke, but the outplaying as indicative of humanity's superior strategical understanding, flattened by the computer's superior tactics. By comparison, the average or mediocre grandmaster is now losing routinely at pawn odds, and this may well be widened to two pawn odds if the programmers can stop handicapping their contraptions via their own ineptitude. k my words: it is only a matter of time before a HAL9000 style machine can give mediocre GMs a Knight, utilizing an anti-human style of play which cleverly avoids simplification, except when sufficiently advantageous to itself. A long, long time ago, pundits insisted that programs would not ever become strong enough to defeat a human master; that later waffled into "grandmaster", and it took decades for the process to reach a point where even that waffle got "cooked". A big part of the problem was in recognition that even the best players were only human; that they were far from infallible. -- help bot         Date: 28 Nov 2007 20:50:31 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS >If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the greater threat in chess competition, now that computers have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre GMs. > -- help bot Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on. Please note: there is no "drug problem" in chess. And, to be sure, he offers us more of his GM-spleenis envy. When reading his posting, we again vel at how he must be seething. He wanted to be one thing in life, but he turned out another. Greg can never forgive GMs and those who are well read. If GMs are, then, "mediocre," what does that make our Greg? A woodpusher duffer, a huffer and puffer? puffer? But we hear not him describing himself in such terms. As Greg once told us, he coulda been a contendah if he had just been raised in Brooklyn like Bobby Fischer. Ho, ho, ho. help bot wrote: > On Nov 28, 9:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding > > > > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that > > > > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the > > > > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the > > > > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane > > > > > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments > > > > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing > > > > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of > > > > control seems like anarchy to them. > > > > > Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem > > > to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing. > > > Though that may be unfair to 6th graders. > > > If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers > of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the > greater threat in chess competition, now that computers > have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre > GMs. In the old days, the greatest threat was that a > player would consult with other human chess players > while his games were in progress, but now that would > only seem necessary if consultation with a computer > were difficult or impossible. > > By comparison, using drugs is a poor strategy, unless > the alternative is not possible or if there is a greater risk > of getting caught. (Of course, there may be other, > perfectly valid reasons for wanting to use drugs. ;>D ) > > Perhaps special booths will need to be constructed. > Lead shields can prevent the transmission of radio > waves, and state-of-the-art electronics detectors can > prevent use of hidden devices without the need for a > body-cavity search. Slow-motion cameras will put an > end to any funny-business like that seen when Gary > Kasparov cheated against a girl. Electronics embedded > within the chessboard could eradicate the problem of > illegal-move cheating, and all that remains is to figure > out who will pay for all this equipment... . > > In any case, it makes no difference to me; for years, > I have utilized the undetectable blinking-and-winking > system of cheating, in which *coded signals* are > given from across the room by another player. It is > unfortunate that up to now, I have not been able to > recruit a "helper" above the Class D level, as can be > seen in my play -- but one day I hope to move up to > at least Class C or B, so I can compete with the > drug-users and Fritz-in-my-shoe types. > > One point is this: in terms of priorities, the drug > problem is likely to be far less critical than the > problem of computer cheating, because of the > titanic difference in strength between John Doe > on drugs, and Fritz, sober as a carrot. > > > -- help bot           Date: 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests <[email protected] > wrote in message news:add9900e-3b42-4305-a481-3442b01eba4a@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS > >>If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of computer >>cheating, the latter seems far and away the greater threat in chess >>competition, now that > computers have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre > GMs.> -- help bot > > Greg Kennedy dribbles on and on. Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. Computers are the idiot-savants of chess. Years ago Taimanov was charmed by the idea that his Game 3 with Fischer, and Qh3 !?!, seemed to me to be the most complx position achieved in chess in the C20th - he didn't disagree, and noted that no supercomputer solved it. > Please note: > there is no "drug problem" in chess. In fact - I think this should be a banner for chess - the refusal to take part in drug-infested sports - making the clear counter-claim that chess is drug free. Instead of drug testing - I suggest the best safeguard for players is to test the organisers and the teachers, by ensuring proper standard of background checking of those who would have anything to do with our kids. Maybe Larry Evans could also put that proposition to the ACP? As well as the usual guard against paedophiles which is adopted almost universally elsewhere, there are also other unsavory behaviors which administrators have - and really, Do we have no standards at all? Why is this man president ? - he is no 'representative' of We the chess People, indeed, no democrat at all. Yet here is the fons et origo of the non-problem which aspires to become a big problem by suggesting there /are/ drugs to avoid in chess - by banning and fining players, which is more than suggestive that actual offenses or unfair behavior /has/ taken place... that, I put to you, is the Greater salivating Dribble which drips down from the top; an appetite for power that is never appeased by feeding it. Phil Innes > And, to be sure, > he offers us more of his GM-spleenis envy. When > reading his posting, we again vel at how he must > be seething. He wanted to be one thing in life, but he > turned out another. Greg can never forgive GMs and > those who are well read. > > If GMs are, then, "mediocre," what does that > make our Greg? A woodpusher duffer, a huffer and puffer? > puffer? But we hear not him describing himself in such terms. > > As Greg once told us, he coulda been a > contendah if he had just been raised in Brooklyn like > Bobby Fischer. > > Ho, ho, ho. > > > > help bot wrote: >> On Nov 28, 9:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding >> > > > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, >> > > > that >> > > > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the >> > > > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is >> > > > the >> > > > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane >> > >> > > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments >> > > > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing >> > > > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of >> > > > control seems like anarchy to them. >> > >> > > Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem >> > > to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing. >> > > Though that may be unfair to 6th graders. >> >> >> If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers >> of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the >> greater threat in chess competition, now that computers >> have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre >> GMs. In the old days, the greatest threat was that a >> player would consult with other human chess players >> while his games were in progress, but now that would >> only seem necessary if consultation with a computer >> were difficult or impossible. >> >> By comparison, using drugs is a poor strategy, unless >> the alternative is not possible or if there is a greater risk >> of getting caught. (Of course, there may be other, >> perfectly valid reasons for wanting to use drugs. ;>D ) >> >> Perhaps special booths will need to be constructed. >> Lead shields can prevent the transmission of radio >> waves, and state-of-the-art electronics detectors can >> prevent use of hidden devices without the need for a >> body-cavity search. Slow-motion cameras will put an >> end to any funny-business like that seen when Gary >> Kasparov cheated against a girl. Electronics embedded >> within the chessboard could eradicate the problem of >> illegal-move cheating, and all that remains is to figure >> out who will pay for all this equipment... . >> >> In any case, it makes no difference to me; for years, >> I have utilized the undetectable blinking-and-winking >> system of cheating, in which *coded signals* are >> given from across the room by another player. It is >> unfortunate that up to now, I have not been able to >> recruit a "helper" above the Class D level, as can be >> seen in my play -- but one day I hope to move up to >> at least Class C or B, so I can compete with the >> drug-users and Fritz-in-my-shoe types. >> >> One point is this: in terms of priorities, the drug >> problem is likely to be far less critical than the >> problem of computer cheating, because of the >> titanic difference in strength between John Doe >> on drugs, and Fritz, sober as a carrot. >> >> >> -- help bot             Date: 29 Nov 2007 23:42:04 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two >position that Frtiz couldn't solve. Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in Forsyth notation.               Date: 30 Nov 2007 06:30:37 From: Chess One Subject: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two >>position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > > Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in > Forsyth notation. A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google. But tell us, Mike. If you did find the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!] then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to find anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things. Phil                 Date: 30 Nov 2007 08:16:05 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:30:37 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a mate-in-two >>>position that Frtiz couldn't solve. >> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in >> Forsyth notation. >A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google. This is a text newsgroup, Phil, so I was suggesting you supply the position in a text-only format. In case you're really ignorant of what Forsyth notation really is, read this: http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/basic/forsyth/forsyth.htm >But tell us, Mike. If you did find >the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this >Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!] >then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to find >anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things. Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing smoke. We both know that. Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program) couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve any conceivable mate in two. Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't "understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us one of those little gems. But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve?? No way.                   Date: 30 Nov 2007 17:08:15 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:30:37 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>news:[email protected]... >>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:49:00 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: > >>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a >>>>mate-in-two >>>>position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > >>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position in >>> Forsyth notation. > >>A Forsyth Saga? Go ahead, have a google. > > This is a text newsgroup, Phil, so I was suggesting you supply the > position in a text-only format. In case you're really ignorant of > what Forsyth notation really is, read this: I am not, being a real chess journalist. In case you are ignorant of google, try that, since you would rather I do your work for you. Its there - I reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too.... > http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/basic/forsyth/forsyth.htm > >>But tell us, Mike. If you did find >>the unpreposterous position, what then? Anything? I've been through this >>Kingstonite stuff before, where writers give their verdict, bet [nothing!] >>then 'request' information. You would almost think they didn't want to >>find >>anything out, or mention some taboo aspect of things. > > Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. Well, Mike Murray isn't becuase he would rather be, what is it, clever on newsgroups, than research what he challenges? Join the crowd, Mr. Murray! > It doesn't > exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing > smoke. We both know that. I challenged you to be normal - like what would you do if proved wrong? We both know /that/, but since you can't bother to look you whine, and say what 'we' know. pfft! What a bloody nonsense! You are equally disposed to trashing others, of note. > Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program) > couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of > computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve > any conceivable mate in two. I spoke of a specific position. I don't care about old Ataris. > Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't > "understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or > one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out > be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have > been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us > one of those little gems. > > But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve?? > No way. And you self imposed penance is? I mean, you are very willing to call other people shit, how shall we call you? Phil Innes                     Date: 30 Nov 2007 15:50:50 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:08:15 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >>>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a >>>>>mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. >>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position >...being a real chess journalist.... I >reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too.... I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the page http://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml Well, guess what Phil. I entered the into Fritz. Now, I have several engines that can run under the Fritz User Interface. I started with the oldest. Fritz 5.32, a much older version, solved it instantly. Fritz8, Fritz9 and Fritz10, using the Mate Search option solved it instantly. Rybka solved it instantly. Some of the other engines found longer mates. Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? Obviously, she was misled by the fact that if you don't specify "Mate Search" with Fritz 8, 9 or 10, it finds a mate in 4 and quits looking. She confused a side effect of an optimization tweak with an *inability* to solve a problem. Is this because Fritz 10 plays a weaker game than it's ancestor Fritz 5.32? No. It's because you haven't *told* it to work in problem solving mode. (Tools -- >Analysis -->Mate Search on the menu). If you tell it to solve a forced mate problem, it finds the mate in two instantly. Human players work the same way. If I show you a position and ask, "what would you play here, Phil?", you'll proceed very differently than if I say, "find the mate in two, Phil". Now, to anticipate your coming evasion to the effect, "well you had to put it problem solving mode, so it doesn't count" -- remember, it was still Fritz 10 that solved it, not Herman 3.0. You should investigate stuff like this Phil, instead of mindlessly repeating authority figures' claims. It's the difference between being a journalist and an RSS feed.                       Date: 01 Dec 2007 08:02:31 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:08:15 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a >>>>>>mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > >>>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position > >>...being a real chess journalist.... I >>reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too.... > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > page http://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > > Well, guess what Phil. I entered the into Fritz. Now, I have > several engines that can run under the Fritz User Interface. I > started with the oldest. Fritz 5.32, a much older version, solved it > instantly. Fritz8, Fritz9 and Fritz10, using the Mate Search option > solved it instantly. Rybka solved it instantly. Some of the other > engines found longer mates. Well sure - after all its just a mate in 2! > Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? Because it could not! Isn't that enough reason to 'claim' it? As result of her report, the latest Fritz undertook a minor operation and is recovering as well as can be expected. > Obviously, she was misled by the fact that if you don't specify "Mate > Search" with Fritz 8, 9 or 10, it finds a mate in 4 and quits looking. > She confused a side effect of an optimization tweak with an > *inability* to solve a problem. > > Is this because Fritz 10 plays a weaker game than it's ancestor Fritz > 5.32? No. It's because you haven't *told* it to work in problem > solving mode. (Tools -->Analysis -->Mate Search on the menu). If you > tell it to solve a forced mate problem, it finds the mate in two > instantly. Laugh - well - its hard to interpret exactly whay you say - but if you have to tell Fritz to solve a mate in 2 rather than let it do so, then this establishes the reason for stating the anecdote in the first place. Beside which, it interupts the evaluated 'view' of the engine - because it is useless to look 20 plies ahead to a forced mate [in two, but in any amount of subsequent moves], the engine won't play that line, and will necessarily play a substandard line. > Human players work the same way. If I show you a position and ask, > "what would you play here, Phil?", you'll proceed very differently > than if I say, "find the mate in two, Phil". > > Now, to anticipate your coming evasion to the effect, "well you had to > put it problem solving mode, so it doesn't count" -- remember, it was > still Fritz 10 that solved it, not Herman 3.0. So the program couldn't solve a mate in 2 without a human being spotting a mate in two and changing modes for it [!!!] But are we to think that this high rated engine suddenly becomes aware that it has a mate in two? Or that a strong player needs to look over Fritz'z shoulder and suggest a 10 move sequence which brings about a forcing 2 move sequence - giving Fritz a kick in the shins 20 plies hence by forcing a mode change? Therefore the engine is far from being the super-sure evaluator of games, superior to such as Evans and other analysts, which was some fool's brave claim prior to this anecdote being played. See the MAMS references below. Even k Taimanov said no super-computer could 'solve' his game 3 with Fischer. It is simply an anecdote about the fallibility of chess-engines. There is no need to go nuts and call real chess players mindless - since some chess mind needs to change modes for it, right? > You should investigate stuff like this Phil, instead of mindlessly > repeating authority figures' claims. It's the difference between > being a journalist and an RSS feed. Almost all computer boosters are hysterics. They cannot admit any candid point about the worth of 'their' computer [lol], without this degree of dissembling on the plainest of facts, and with the usual animus of making their darlings superior to strong players - which as 'vicarious champion' often seems to be their entire motive for interest in the first place. I have been happy to work with Albert Alberts and his MAMS books [second one forthcoming] and look at a whole raft of things the computer can't solve. This is not an attack on computers, it is an evaluation of computers in far more complex situations than this - but let us not gloss the facts that Fritz failed, and is not infallible, even though it got it right on the previous 9 outings! Phil Innes                         Date: 01 Dec 2007 13:39:11 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:02:31 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >> Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? >Because it could not! Isn't that enough reason to 'claim' it? Well, no, Phil, it's not. Not unless you're satisfied with superficial reporting intended to mislead the reader. But since you tend to weasel and obfuscate and refuse to admit error, I guess we'll have to rub your nose in your mistakes point by point, in much the same way as the old folks trained a puppy. First, your claim, above, about "a mate-in-two position that Frtiz [sic] couldn't solve" is false, just plain false, without any further explanation, since good old Fritz 5.32 solved it, period, even without specifying a mate-solving mode. And 5.32 *is* Fritz, ain't it, Phil? Your claim was not version-specific. So, are we clear on that? You were just wrong. Now, had you been a little more accurate and claimed, as Kosteniuk did, that Fritz 10 *couldn't* solve the problem, you'd have made a more subtle error, one worthy of a bit more discussion. To refresh your memory, the goal of a game of chess is to forcibly checkmate the opponent, is it not? Surely even one such as you cannot quibble with this. Now, do the rules of the game, FIDE or USCF (take your pick) award extra credit for checkmating in fewer moves? If you can find such an award in the fine print, please let us know. But until shown otherwise, we'll assume that win, lose or draw are the only valid outcomes of the standard game. From an aesthetic standpoint, we can layer on some preferences as to what constitutes a win in good style. Some may prefer winning via a sacrificial orgy. Some may prefer winning via positional python squeeze. And here's a kicker: some may prefer a longer forced mate in involving some subtle moves or startling sacrifices to a more brutal, quicker win ("the way of the butcher" as Tartakower put it). But, by the rules of the game, a win's a win for all that. Then, there's the domain of the problem. In the problem world, you don't get credit for merely winning (indeed, many of the positions are clearly a win for one side after pretty much any non-idiotic move). You only get credit for winning in a proscribed way. Mate in "x" number of moves, self-mate, retrograde analysis, and many more esoteric variations. The problem world involves extensions to the standard rules of chess. You wouldn't claim that a computer "failed" or was "unable" to solve a self-mate problem or a give-away, for example, if there was no way to make the computer "aware" that this was the task at hand. Your mistake was overlooking that a Mate in "n" problem, while appearing to respect the standard rules of the game, actually involves an enormous revision to them: namely, a longer win is no longer the equal of a shorter win, you don't get the point for it. Now, there is nothing wrong with programming the engine to look for the shortest mate in all cases (as earlier Fritz versions and alternative engines do), but, especially from a practical standpoint, there's nothing wrong with a performance tweak that stops looking when a forced mate is found. Do a wee bit of historical research. Check out Larry Evans' columns where various readers have found quicker mates in the famous game between Edward Lasker and Thomas. I'd say his response could be characterized as a bemused, "yeah, yeah, you're right, big deal, so what?". A point's a point, whether mate in twelve or mate in nine or a mate in seven. Bottom line: Kasteniuk was wrong to say Fritz 10 couldn't solve the problem. Fritz 10 easily solved the problem when made aware that it was in problem mode where a shorter forced mate is worth more than a longer one. In real OTB chess, it's not worth a whit more, although one may think it looks nicer. >Laugh - well - its hard to interpret exactly whay you say - but if you have >to tell Fritz to solve a mate in 2 rather than let it do so, then this >establishes the reason for stating the anecdote in the first place. And, in line with the above your glib response is at best superficial, at worst moronic, since one would be informing Fritz that its task was the general problem of shortest mate, not as you say, the specific one of a mate in 2. In other words, you have to tell it get out of OTB mode and use a particular extension to the rules. >So the program couldn't solve a mate in 2 without a human being spotting a >mate in two and changing modes for it [!!!] Again, the real answer is it didn't bother looking for the mate in two because it spotted a forced mate in four, and from the standpoint of OTB rules, the results are equivalent. It's only in the problem domain where they're not. >I have been happy to work with Albert Alberts and his MAMS books [second one >forthcoming] and look at a whole raft of things the computer can't solve. From what you've demonstrated thus far, Phil, you have no business collaborating on such an enterprise in anything other than a clerical role.                       Date: 30 Nov 2007 16:48:53 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Mike Murray wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:08:15 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>> Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a >>>>>> mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > >>>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position > >> ...being a real chess journalist.... I >> reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too.... > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > page http://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > > Well, guess what Phil. I entered the into Fritz. Now, I have > several engines that can run under the Fritz User Interface. I > started with the oldest. Fritz 5.32, a much older version, solved it > instantly. Fritz8, Fritz9 and Fritz10, using the Mate Search option > solved it instantly. Rybka solved it instantly. Some of the other > engines found longer mates. > > Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? > Obviously, she was misled by the fact that if you don't specify "Mate > Search" with Fritz 8, 9 or 10, it finds a mate in 4 and quits looking. > She confused a side effect of an optimization tweak with an > *inability* to solve a problem. > > Is this because Fritz 10 plays a weaker game than it's ancestor Fritz > 5.32? No. It's because you haven't *told* it to work in problem > solving mode. (Tools -->Analysis -->Mate Search on the menu). If you > tell it to solve a forced mate problem, it finds the mate in two > instantly. > > Human players work the same way. If I show you a position and ask, > "what would you play here, Phil?", you'll proceed very differently > than if I say, "find the mate in two, Phil". > > Now, to anticipate your coming evasion to the effect, "well you had to > put it problem solving mode, so it doesn't count" -- remember, it was > still Fritz 10 that solved it, not Herman 3.0. > > You should investigate stuff like this Phil, instead of mindlessly > repeating authority figures' claims. It's the difference between > being a journalist and an RSS feed. Ah ha Mr. Murray! I've caught you red-handed. I see the red hunting cap perched jauntily on yer noggin, the many pocketed vest around yer torso, the heavy blunderbuss at you shoulder. And what are you doing with that crate of evidence... er ammunition? You must realize that it is not duck hunting season and in any case you do not have a duck hunting license. Even though from a distance that may seem a journalist, in reality it is a duck. If you were closer, you would doubtless know that it both SEEMED and WAS a duck. Any resemblance to a journalist is pure illusion in this vaporous peat bog. So put the gun away and go home. Wait for duck hunting season to roll around. Buy a proper hunting license. You wouldn't want to pay the hefty fines we dole out in rgcp would you? :^) -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                         Date: 30 Nov 2007 17:04:58 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:48:53 -0800, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >Ah ha Mr. Murray! I've caught you red-handed. I see the red hunting >cap perched jauntily on yer noggin, the many pocketed vest around yer >torso, the heavy blunderbuss at you shoulder. And what are you doing >with that crate of evidence... er ammunition? You must realize that it >is not duck hunting season and in any case you do not have a duck >hunting license. > >Even though from a distance that may seem a journalist, in reality it is >a duck. If you were closer, you would doubtless know that it both >SEEMED and WAS a duck. Any resemblance to a journalist is pure illusion >in this vaporous peat bog. > >So put the gun away and go home. Wait for duck hunting season to roll >around. Buy a proper hunting license. You wouldn't want to pay the >hefty fines we dole out in rgcp would you? :^) Target practice, Rev., just target practice. Wouldn't hurt a soul. Honest.         Date: 28 Nov 2007 19:30:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 28, 9:09 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding > > > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that > > > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the > > > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the > > > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane > > > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments > > > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing > > > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of > > > control seems like anarchy to them. > > > Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem > > to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing. > > Though that may be unfair to 6th graders. If you look at the dangers of drug use versus the dangers of computer cheating, the latter seems far and away the greater threat in chess competition, now that computers have far superseded the analytical abilities of mediocre GMs. In the old days, the greatest threat was that a player would consult with other human chess players while his games were in progress, but now that would only seem necessary if consultation with a computer were difficult or impossible. By comparison, using drugs is a poor strategy, unless the alternative is not possible or if there is a greater risk of getting caught. (Of course, there may be other, perfectly valid reasons for wanting to use drugs. ; >D ) Perhaps special booths will need to be constructed. Lead shields can prevent the transmission of radio waves, and state-of-the-art electronics detectors can prevent use of hidden devices without the need for a body-cavity search. Slow-motion cameras will put an end to any funny-business like that seen when Gary Kasparov cheated against a girl. Electronics embedded within the chessboard could eradicate the problem of illegal-move cheating, and all that remains is to figure out who will pay for all this equipment... . In any case, it makes no difference to me; for years, I have utilized the undetectable blinking-and-winking system of cheating, in which *coded signals* are given from across the room by another player. It is unfortunate that up to now, I have not been able to recruit a "helper" above the Class D level, as can be seen in my play -- but one day I hope to move up to at least Class C or B, so I can compete with the drug-users and Fritz-in-my-shoe types. One point is this: in terms of priorities, the drug problem is likely to be far less critical than the problem of computer cheating, because of the titanic difference in strength between John Doe on drugs, and Fritz, sober as a carrot. -- help bot           Date: 01 Dec 2007 20:21:45 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 4:39 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? > >Because it could not! Isn't that enough reason to 'claim' it? > > Well, no, Phil, it's not. Not unless you're satisfied with > superficial reporting There it is *again*! The misbegotten /delusion/ that IM Innes is some kind of a "reporter". Where did this idea come from? Who started the cult, and why? > intended to mislead the reader. But since you > tend to weasel and obfuscate and refuse to admit error, I guess we'll > have to rub your nose in your mistakes point by point, in much the > same way as the old folks trained a puppy. Your old folks are sick, demented, psychopathic losers in dire need of a few lessons in humanity. (Apart from that, they're probably good people.) The behavior described above is called abuse, not training, you psychos. Now go back to pulling the wings off of flies, and leave us alone. > First, your claim, above, about "a mate-in-two > position that Frtiz [sic] couldn't solve" is false, just plain false, > without any further explanation, since good old Fritz 5.32 solved it, > period, even without specifying a mate-solving mode. And 5.32 *is* > Fritz, ain't it, Phil? Your claim was not version-specific. > > So, are we clear on that? You were just wrong. Imagine that -- IM Innes being wrong. Shocking. > >I have been happy to work with Albert Alberts and his MAMS books [second one > >forthcoming] and look at a whole raft of things the computer can't solve. > > From what you've demonstrated thus far, Phil, you have no business > collaborating on such an enterprise in anything other than a clerical > role. He is perhaps qualified to sweep up the floor after the printing process is complete and the books have been shipped elsewhere. --- The real issue here is that many chess programmers made no effort to "optimize" anything but results; a better idea would have been to adapt their work to the intended audience, to humans. We stupid humans want a program (or human) rated 2900+ to be able to find the shortest win, rank all forced mates in proper order, rank every candidate move in order from best to worst, and do all this in record time while having a pleasing user interface. And we want it NOW, or else! -- help bot             Date: 02 Dec 2007 15:14:36 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:21:45 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Your old folks are sick, demented, psychopathic >losers in dire need of a few lessons in humanity. >(Apart from that, they're probably good people.) >The behavior described above is called abuse, not >training, you psychos. Now go back to pulling the >wings off of flies, and leave us alone. You can't say stuff like that around here. Now, bend over this printout while I grab the back of your head...         Date: 28 Nov 2007 18:09:08 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests SIX GRADERS <I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing. Though that may be unfair to 6th graders. >-- David Kane I take it, then, that David Kane will not be adding his name to my petition. Since at the moment only about 80 of the world's top players will be affected by out-of-competition testing, GM Larry Evans has submitted the issue to the governing board of Association of Chess Professionals. What will come of it remains to be seen. David Kane wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:f34064bd-bcf6-44e6-be06-33c95f6390b2@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > WE CAN'T PUT OFF THE BATTLE > > > > > > <Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding > > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that > > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the > > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the > > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane > > > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments > > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing > > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of > > control seems like anarchy to them. > > > > Hardly. I was just pointing out that you and Evans seem > to have about a 6th grade understanding of drug testing. > Though that may be unfair to 6th graders.           Date: 03 Dec 2007 17:55:25 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 2:42 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > help bot wrote: > > On Nov 30, 11:30 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > >>>> I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > >>>> pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > > >>> Not any more. > > >> Tryhttp://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43 > > > Much better, thanks! > > I tried this out also with my pathetic collection of free engines. I > used no special problem solving setting. My results: > > Early Rybka demo, and two versions of Crafty were content with 4 move > mates. It was mission accomplished for them. > > Toga II solved the problem almost instantly. > > The prize went to Gambit Fruit though which solved it instantly. It > seems to place a higher weight on sacrifices. > > So if this motley assembly of engines did that well without special > instructions, I'd say, in the words of the famous Mythbusters, "This one > is busted!" It was not a problem that was unsolvable by computers. > > Engines and computers are only going to get stronger and more pervasive. > We are just gonna have to learn to live with it. > -- > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. If, as seems clear from the above link, the position in question is this: W: Kc3, Qg5, Re6 B: Kf2, Bf1, f3 then my Fritz8, running on a laptop, had no trouble finding the mate in two within one or two seconds: 1. Re1 (when any move by the black bishop allows 2.Qg1# or 2.Qh4#) 1...Kxe1 2.Qd2#. I wonder if this really stumped Fritz 10 at all, or is someone putting us on.             Date: 04 Dec 2007 09:34:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:a3f20daf-d100-4a70-8cc5-c2f6d5179dde@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > If, as seems clear from the above link, the position in question is > this: > > W: Kc3, Qg5, Re6 > B: Kf2, Bf1, f3 > > then my Fritz8, running on a laptop, had no trouble finding the mate > in two within one or two seconds: 1. Re1 (when any move by the black > bishop allows 2.Qg1# or 2.Qh4#) 1...Kxe1 2.Qd2#. I wonder if this > really stumped Fritz 10 at all, or is someone putting us on. Do you wonder enough to find out? Or do you just wonder, Kingston, since what else can you do if you don't research it? See if you can understand this: I have only written it here half a dozen times, and you know, some peoples' modems run at extremely slow baud rates ... Fritz 10 had this problem, was pointed out, was then fixed. Now - since half a dozen arguments have arisen around this subject, the previous sentence is the thing to argue about, or even check out! But if you would rather wonder and be a little parano, you are welcome. Phil Innes           Date: 03 Dec 2007 08:41:33 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Victoriana's old clothes & Christmass of yester-year On Dec 3, 11:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:afc33292-f173-40f4-b249-7a4aec78f564@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 3, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> GILBERT & SULLIVAN > >> Still, how does one go about trying to explain to a > >> callow Kennedy the assumptions of that wonderful 19th > >> century world? > > > Do you feel an obligation to do so? I don't. > > This is one of those rare occassions [because snow here too? a foot of it! > or is it the approach of Christmas?] where I am tempted to side with > corn-fed, not only because of the forced diet of G&S in my youth... It's been clear for several years you played Mabel once too often, Philsy.             Date: 03 Dec 2007 12:19:09 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Victoriana's old clothes & Christmass of yester-year "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:2ded4cf8-d138-49e7-8e1f-4288d0ab45db@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 3, 11:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:afc33292-f173-40f4-b249-7a4aec78f564@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Dec 3, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> GILBERT & SULLIVAN >> >> Still, how does one go about trying to explain to a >> >> callow Kennedy the assumptions of that wonderful 19th >> >> century world? >> >> > Do you feel an obligation to do so? I don't. >> >> This is one of those rare occassions [because snow here too? a foot of >> it! >> or is it the approach of Christmas?] where I am tempted to side with >> corn-fed, not only because of the forced diet of G&S in my youth... > > It's been clear for several years you played Mabel once too often, > Philsy. I wouldn't know, Nillsy. But come, cheer up! Larry has made this magnificient seasonal overture to see if varieties of people can get on for any amount of time. He mentioned at least the cheery aspect of Victorian Christmas, the same one, more or less we have been celebrating since Dickens. I shall not mention the first 3 words of the header as being Dire Straights, since Larry probably wouldn't grok it, but i have very found memories of it, since while in Germany earning my 2850 rating [provisional] i had a german girlfriend who was a trainee-shrink, a shrinkette i suppose you could say, and she had a VW beetle that i became expert at fixing. So... truth or dare! I am going to anticipate for my buddy corn-fed that he will like Paint Your Wagon, which ain't a bad choice at all - the initial effect of Lee vin's voice being literally 'awesome'. As for me, I have hardly progressed from plainsong, to Gregorian chant and back again, and like catholic Tallis as much as anyone. His Masses for 4 voices was probably heard by Shakespeare and Elizabeth alike, even though it was written after the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1559. With Byrd he wrote English and Latin texts, expoiting the ambiguities of the time, though Te lucis ante terminum' and 'in manus tuas Domine, are Catholic with a large C, and formed part of the service of Compline. Here is Jeremy Summerley's supposition: "Whether they were performed at court in services allowed by the Queen, and why they were able to be published leads to the wider, as yet unanswered, question of how intolerant of things Roman Catholic Elizabeth could afford to be." Summerley left BBC in 1989 to join Royal Academy of Music, and in 1990 was appointed conductor of Schola Cantorium of Oxford. I will post relevant section of this note to HLAS, for any informed opinion that may be had. Cordially! [with the pun!] Phil Innes           Date: 01 Dec 2007 19:47:10 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 8:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > That presentation was not by Ms. Kosteniuk, but by > > Almira Skripchenko, and when I tried to set it up in > > Fritz 5.32 (a very old version of Fritz) set to infinite > > analysis, it found the correct move instantaneously. > > I did not even need to utilize the mate-finder mode. > > > Like so many of the Evans ratpackers' poorly- > > aimed jabs, that one missed the k by a country > > mile, as even the *free* version of Fritz solves it > > instantly. > > What a slobering idiot! Which one -- Mr. Keene, Mr. Evans, Mr. Parr or my good friend Fritz? > (a) I cited the French champion Skripchenko in my > column. Nice work. But I have not read your column, and of course was referring to a posting in this forum. In that very brief quote, no mention was made of a column by IM Innes, of sexy French women talking about chess, nor was the actual chess position even given. > (b) This has nothing to do with 'Evans ratpackers' It does if you consider the close similarities: a) shooting in the dark b) missing the intended target c) resenting the target for being missed d) etc., etc. > (c) it took google 12 seconds to loicate the URL Ah, but it could not solve the mate, could it? That's why Fritz is widely considered ster. > (d) It was about a /fallibility/ in the > latest Fritz [which is the point of all] As I have pointed out before, critics on the Rybka Web site have pointed out the same problem with that program and others, and only now is the programmer planning to fix it so his creation will attempt to find "shorter mates". It is often dealt with as though unimportant, like say the color of the background screen. > Greg Kennedy couldn't find a 2-move turn-around for a posted Rob Mitchell > game in this newsgroup, mocked him too, and presumably would have resigned > in a won position agaisnt a 1600 opponent. I happen to know for a fact that he never resigned against his vast inferiors, but played on until checkmate or a flag fall (usually theirs). OTOH, I believe he did resign against GM Wolff (after PW got lucky in the middle game and won material). And speaking of vast inferiors -- how much did you have to pay Mr. Mitchell to vote for you as the greatest whatever on ChessWorld? Assuming *somebody* on that site was using Fritz, this was a grave injustice. > That's why strong players need keep tabs on stong, if vague, talkers... look > at what comes next! Stong talkers? I recently learned of a Web site containing a few Andean words and phrases, but as I recall, that was definitely not one of them. Besides, why can't they just learn Spanish, like other muchachos? -- help bot           Date: 01 Dec 2007 07:48:32 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 7:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: You must realize that it > is not duck hunting season and in any case you do not have a duck > hunting license. > > Even though from a distance that may seem a journalist, in reality it is > a duck. If you were closer, you would doubtless know that it both > SEEMED and WAS a duck. Phil is not all he's quacked up to be.           Date: 01 Dec 2007 04:08:39 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 2:42 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Tryhttp://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43 > > > Much better, thanks! > > I tried this out also with my pathetic collection of free engines. I > used no special problem solving setting. My results: > > Early Rybka demo, and two versions of Crafty were content with 4 move > mates. It was mission accomplished for them. Wow. I can't even get the Rybka demo to consider the alternatives; it just spits out Qe3 instantaneously, as if it were the only legal move, then sits there, smirking at me. > Toga II solved the problem almost instantly. > > The prize went to Gambit Fruit though which solved it instantly. It > seems to place a higher weight on sacrifices. > > So if this motley assembly of engines did that well without special > instructions, I'd say, in the words of the famous Mythbusters, "This one > is busted!" It was not a problem that was unsolvable by computers. "Some engines are not programmed /optimally/ for finding the shortest mate." -- excuse bot > Engines and computers are only going to get stronger and more pervasive. > We are just gonna have to learn to live with it. I recently went over some grandmaster analysis which was aided by the Freezer endgame analysis program, and my computer seemed to see things that the GM + Freezer team missed; subtle things, to be sure, but the whole idea was to "see" everything important, by excluding the irrelevant via input "rules" and then brute-forcing it to the finish line. In another test, my computer did surprisingly well in pinpointing the path to victory in KRB vs. KR, but the online endgame table bases were needed to "explain to me" why all alternative attempts failed. Although it is very unlikely I will remember everything, this could one day win me a game or two, if for no other reason than the chilling reminder that not all attacks are direct, that seeming irrelevancies can prove decisive -- maybe even the /only/ road to victory. I was particularly surprised by one Rook retreat, with the sole purpose of guarding a key square so the Bishop could then safely retreat to it, and in turn, from there the Bishop prevents a certain lateral defensive move by the enemy Rook, without which his delicate defenses will crumble. (Smacks self on forehead) .. Wow! I coudda had a V-8. -- help bot           Date: 30 Nov 2007 22:12:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 11:30 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > > > pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > > Not any more. > Try http://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43 Much better, thanks! That presentation was not by Ms. Kosteniuk, but by Almira Skripchenko, and when I tried to set it up in Fritz 5.32 (a very old version of Fritz) set to infinite analysis, it found the correct move instantaneously. I did not even need to utilize the mate-finder mode. Like so many of the Evans ratpackers' poorly- aimed jabs, that one missed the k by a country mile, as even the *free* version of Fritz solves it instantly. ---- A while ago, I was going over some "GM analysis" of an old game between two famous players, and I noticed that my computer easily spotted a number of serious errors, in very little time. This time, it was not some inane speculation by an old-timer well past his prime which was the subject of scrutiny, but commentary by a likable, well-respected GM who undoubtedly had access to far stronger computers than I. Nevertheless, his analysis was found to be wanting; several tactical improvements were overlooked, and most troubling was the duplication of "randomized" exclams, queries and even double- queries which one can find in any recent issue of Chess Lies magazine. I had believed that of all the popular chess writers, this one was in a higher class than most; apparently, I was wrong, or else the quality of his work varies widely. What these famous writers have in talent, they more than make up for in terms of laziness. LOL! I recall reading, years ago, one of my own games being analyzed by an unknown USCF Expert or Class A player; that fellow did a superb job in spite of the fact that he never asked why we chose a given move or plan; he simply figured it all out for himself with /study and hard work/ -- seemingly the bane of all published chess writers these days. -- help bot             Date: 01 Dec 2007 08:32:09 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 30, 11:30 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the >> > > pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > >> > Not any more. > >> Try http://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43 > > Much better, thanks! > > > That presentation was not by Ms. Kosteniuk, but by > Almira Skripchenko, and when I tried to set it up in > Fritz 5.32 (a very old version of Fritz) set to infinite > analysis, it found the correct move instantaneously. > I did not even need to utilize the mate-finder mode. > > Like so many of the Evans ratpackers' poorly- > aimed jabs, that one missed the k by a country > mile, as even the *free* version of Fritz solves it > instantly. What a slobering idiot! (a) I cited the French champion Skripchenko in my column. (b) This has nothing to do with 'Evans ratpackers' (c) it took google 12 seconds to loicate the URL (d) It was about a /fallibility/ in the latest Fritz [which is the point of all] Greg Kennedy couldn't find a 2-move turn-around for a posted Rob Mitchell game in this newsgroup, mocked him too, and presumably would have resigned in a won position agaisnt a 1600 opponent. That's why strong players need keep tabs on stong, if vague, talkers... look at what comes next! Kennedy generalises the issue out of existence. Murray tries 'target practice' which if actually applied to his chess writing, would be better than ready, fire, aim, and SBD offers me gratuitous advice since he can't see nuthin wrong <shrug > Phil Innes > ---- > > A while ago, I was going over some "GM analysis" > of an old game between two famous players, and I > noticed that my computer easily spotted a number > of serious errors, in very little time. This time, it was > not some inane speculation by an old-timer well past > his prime which was the subject of scrutiny, but > commentary by a likable, well-respected GM who > undoubtedly had access to far stronger computers > than I. Nevertheless, his analysis was found to be > wanting; several tactical improvements were > overlooked, and most troubling was the duplication > of "randomized" exclams, queries and even double- > queries which one can find in any recent issue of > Chess Lies magazine. I had believed that of all the > popular chess writers, this one was in a higher class > than most; apparently, I was wrong, or else the > quality of his work varies widely. > > What these famous writers have in talent, they > more than make up for in terms of laziness. LOL! > I recall reading, years ago, one of my own games > being analyzed by an unknown USCF Expert or > Class A player; that fellow did a superb job in spite > of the fact that he never asked why we chose a given > move or plan; he simply figured it all out for himself > with /study and hard work/ -- seemingly the bane of > all published chess writers these days. > > > -- help bot > > > > > > > > > > >             Date: 30 Nov 2007 23:42:09 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests help bot wrote: > On Nov 30, 11:30 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the >>>> pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > >>> Not any more. > >> Try http://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43 > > Much better, thanks! > I tried this out also with my pathetic collection of free engines. I used no special problem solving setting. My results: Early Rybka demo, and two versions of Crafty were content with 4 move mates. It was mission accomplished for them. Toga II solved the problem almost instantly. The prize went to Gambit Fruit though which solved it instantly. It seems to place a higher weight on sacrifices. So if this motley assembly of engines did that well without special instructions, I'd say, in the words of the famous Mythbusters, "This one is busted!" It was not a problem that was unsolvable by computers. Engines and computers are only going to get stronger and more pervasive. We are just gonna have to learn to live with it. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 30 Nov 2007 20:30:42 From: Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 5:28 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 30, 6:50 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > > pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml > Not any more. Try http://www.chesskillertips.com/index.php?f=43           Date: 30 Nov 2007 17:28:50 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 6:50 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > >>>>>Alexandra Kosteniuk sent me something a few months ago with a > >>>>>mate-in-two position that Frtiz couldn't solve. > >>>> Preposterous. I'll bet you can't provide a link or the position > >...being a real chess journalist.... I > >reported in it my column and Alexandra reported it elsewhere too.... > > I assume it's the position entitled "CKT018 Fritz 10 Teaser" on the > pagehttp://www.chesskillertips.com/chesskillertips.xml Not any more. > Well, guess what Phil. I entered the into Fritz. Now, I have > several engines that can run under the Fritz User Interface. I > started with the oldest. Fritz 5.32, a much older version, solved it > instantly. Fritz8, Fritz9 and Fritz10, using the Mate Search option > solved it instantly. Gee, I wonder if he's a Fritz collector? > Rybka solved it instantly. Anyone can get lucky, now and then. > Now, why would Kosteniuk claim that Fritz couldn't solve it? Maybe IM Innes told her so? > Obviously, she was misled by the fact that if you don't specify "Mate > Search" with Fritz 8, 9 or 10, it finds a mate in 4 and quits looking. > She confused a side effect of an optimization tweak with an > *inability* to solve a problem. > > Is this because Fritz 10 plays a weaker game than it's ancestor Fritz > 5.32? No. It's because you haven't *told* it to work in problem > solving mode. (Tools -->Analysis -->Mate Search on the menu). If you > tell it to solve a forced mate problem, it finds the mate in two > instantly. Well, duh! If they had told GM Kramnik to look for a mate-in-one at h7, he might have spotted that, too. (I suppose Fritz can't even tie his own shoes without his mother-board there to help him.) > Human players work the same way. If I show you a position and ask, > "what would you play here, Phil?", you'll proceed very differently > than if I say, "find the mate in two, Phil". No, I think IM Innes would proceed in much the same way, rambling on about your failure to define words like "play" and "here", evading the embarrassment of just admitting he can't solve the problem. > Now, to anticipate your coming evasion to the effect, "well you had to > put it problem solving mode, so it doesn't count" -- remember, it was > still Fritz 10 that solved it, not Herman 3.0. > > You should investigate stuff like this Phil, instead of mindlessly > repeating authority figures' claims. It's the difference between > being a journalist and an RSS feed. IM Innes can't seem to think for himself, so he has developed a habit of uncritical adoption of OPOs (other people's opinions). But I don't see where the term "journalist" comes in; if by that you mean "investigative reporter", there aren't any of those around here; try the Daily Planet. -- help bot         Date: 27 Nov 2007 18:04:22 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests SUGGESTED PETITION Here is a suggested anti-drug testing petition for circulation to your local chess club. We are seeking to form a national committee to campaign against the USCF's de facto support of drug testing at chess tournaments and in Federation affiliates. You are asked to pledge not to give the Federation your money until it takes a series of actions listed in the petition. Our politicians understand only financial force majeure. Moral considerations mean little, if anything to them. They are quite prepared to support FIDE in destroying the careers of chess pros who who fail to conform to the orders of bureaucrats. Yours, Larry Parr PETITION TO PREVENT DRUG TESTING IN U. S. CHESS "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug testing will not be able to play chess." - Dr. Stephen Press, founding vice-chairman of FIDE's Medical Commission "Recently FIDE announced its doping regulations in a truly horrifying document. The humiliations players will have to suffer are sketched in gory detail. Exclusion from all events for life and fines up to a million dollars are threatened. It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever contemplate a career as a professional chessplayer." - Dutch GM Hans Ree We, the undersigned current and former U. S. Chess Federation (USCF) members, hereby PLEDGE on our HONOR either to discontinue or to carefully reconsider purchasing USCF memberships or books and equipment until the Federation publicly ceases de facto support for and publicly rejects all mandatory drug testing in chess. We intend to take our chess money elsewhere when possible. We call on, first, the Executive Board and then the Board of Delegates to take these steps: 1. Pass formal motions that there will be no mandatory drug testing in any USCF-rated tournament; 2. Pass formal motions rejecting FIDE's drug code AS APPLICABLE TO THE USCF and stating that the USCF will enforce no drug code sanctions on any player; and 3. Pass formal motions to campaign actively in FIDE to cease all chess drug testing and to abolish its drug code and medical commission. The Federation must announce in a letter to the presidents of all FIDE member federations, which is to be posted at all major Internet chess sites, that the USCF will disobey all calls by FIDE for drug testing. For these reasons: 1. Drug testing violates privacy. Our medical files are no business of chess officials. 2. Drug testing in chess is a "solution" without a problem. Millions of games have been played without a single complaint that drugs influenced the outcome. 3. No study exists showing that any of the over 100 banned IOC substances, including too much coffee, can raise anyone's chess rating. 4. Both the IOC and the USOC have rejected chess as a sport in the Olympic Games, the stated reason for drug testing. Yet FIDE's drug code permits testing in all tournaments, including low-level, non-FIDE Swiss, speed and scholastic events. FIDE officials can observe the private parts and functions of young children. 5. Many grandmasters state that FIDE's drug code attempts to control players via Draconian penalties. No proof of violation is necessary. Under the code: "Intentional doping can be proved by any means whatsoever, including presumption." One may be "presumed" guilty. No proof needed. 6. For those with medical problems, FIDE states, "Documentary evidence provided, should include AT A MINIMUM [emphasis added], records of tests taken, affidavits from prescribing physicians, consultants' reports, etc." Heavy medical bills and intrusive drug testing will kill chess promotion in the United States. 7. FIDE has recently introduced out-of-competition drug testing in chess, meaning players may be tested any time, anywhere for any reason or no reason at all. [email protected] wrote: > WE CAN'T PUT OFF THE BATTLE > > > <Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding > nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that > there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the > use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the > current state of affairs.) -- David Kane > > As I noted, some people will find the arguments > of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing > where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of > control seems like anarchy to them. > > The man's latest attempt to defend drug testing > in chess is to argue that it is necessary in sports. > Because weightlifters are tested, so should > chessplayers. If a grandmaster -- an intellectual > such as, say, a Hans Ree -- will not cooperate with > FIDE, then destroy his career. If an Artur Yusupov > will not be tested, then go after him. If a promising > young American GM will not cooperate with > self-humiliation at the order of chess bureaucrats, > then drive him into the dust and get him out of chess. > > Many of you will recollect that the first > justification for drug testing offered by Jim Eade and > others like him was that we had to acquiesce so that > our lads would be getting major international > publicity in the Olympic Games. > > Go for the Gold -- and all that tripe. > > The next justification was that some federations > needed money that would accrue to them if FIDE adopted > drug testing. The amounts involved turned out to be > minuscule. The end result was that we Americans and > others would sacrifice the free traditions of chess > for a mess -- and a very small one at that -- of pottage. > > When GM Larry Evans and I predicted that > out-of-competition testing would be the next step in > clamping down, we were attacked by the usual claque of > USCF insiders and FIDE bureaucrats. > > Now, the luscious David Kane tells us that, > well, drug testing is for the sake of the kids > and not all that common as yet. Right. He's a > controller -- and how he must hate players and > journalists who prefer the free life. > > GM Evans and I have explained from the very > beginning that the imposition of drug testing in the > chess world would be incremental. It would be a > process rather than an enactment. That is exactly > what is now happening. > > I have three or four orders of business on these > forums that time shortage has stymied. I want to get > back to Taylor Kingston and the issue of the Laurie letter. > I promised the Rev. Walker several long articles on > Edward Winter and the claque around him. He will be > able to judge for himself, say, the behavior of the > ChessCafe censors. Finally, there is this business of > drug testing, which will have to come first. > > I will be posting a drug petition on this site > and sending it out to quite a few people. The USCF > leadership and the Kirsan toady Kelleher cannot be > permitted to get away with de facto support of > out-of-competition testing and, indeed, drug testing > in general. > > It is time to form a committee to hit the > Federation politicians with the only weapon we have: > a widely circulated petition to deny them funds from > chessplayers. I am willing to serve on the committee > from afar, and I hope there will be a few volunteers here. > Meanwhile, I will be sending out quite a few private > emails trying to organize a movement to circulate > petitions at tournaments and in USCF affiliated clubs. > > We can no longer put off this battle. The > arrogant Kelleher nonsense, which was so contemptuous > of our intelligence and credulity, must be answered > with action. > > Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 83) > > "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug > testing will not be able to play chess. At the moment, I would have to > freely admit there are drugs which theoretically COULD affect > cognitive performance, but we have NO real > scientific proof that anything can positively affect cognitive > performance and consequently, chess." -- Dr. Stephen Press, vice- > chairman FIDE Medical Commission > > Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, shall we? There is no > demonstrable drug problem in chess. There is not even a claimed drug > problem in chess. There is not even, as we shall see, a claim that > there could be a drug problem in chess. There is only a claim that IF > there might someday be a drug that affects cognition, then there could > possibly be a drug problem in chess. > > We have a "could" conditioned on an "if." Wow! > > Yours, Larry Parr         Date: 27 Nov 2007 17:52:40 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests WE CAN'T PUT OFF THE BATTLE <Phonies like Parr, posturing about "freedom" while understanding nothing, don't solve the problem.... I will concede, of course, that there should be no testing in chess IF there is no benefit from the use of harmful or illegal substances. (As I understand it, that is the current state of affairs.) -- David Kane As I noted, some people will find the arguments of a David Kane and other controllers to be convincing where drug testing in chess is concerned. Lack of control seems like anarchy to them. The man's latest attempt to defend drug testing in chess is to argue that it is necessary in sports. Because weightlifters are tested, so should chessplayers. If a grandmaster -- an intellectual such as, say, a Hans Ree -- will not cooperate with FIDE, then destroy his career. If an Artur Yusupov will not be tested, then go after him. If a promising young American GM will not cooperate with self-humiliation at the order of chess bureaucrats, then drive him into the dust and get him out of chess. Many of you will recollect that the first justification for drug testing offered by Jim Eade and others like him was that we had to acquiesce so that our lads would be getting major international publicity in the Olympic Games. Go for the Gold -- and all that tripe. The next justification was that some federations needed money that would accrue to them if FIDE adopted drug testing. The amounts involved turned out to be minuscule. The end result was that we Americans and others would sacrifice the free traditions of chess for a mess -- and a very small one at that -- of pottage. When GM Larry Evans and I predicted that out-of-competition testing would be the next step in clamping down, we were attacked by the usual claque of USCF insiders and FIDE bureaucrats. Now, the luscious David Kane tells us that, well, drug testing is for the sake of the kids and not all that common as yet. Right. He's a controller -- and how he must hate players and journalists who prefer the free life. GM Evans and I have explained from the very beginning that the imposition of drug testing in the chess world would be incremental. It would be a process rather than an enactment. That is exactly what is now happening. I have three or four orders of business on these forums that time shortage has stymied. I want to get back to Taylor Kingston and the issue of the Laurie letter. I promised the Rev. Walker several long articles on Edward Winter and the claque around him. He will be able to judge for himself, say, the behavior of the ChessCafe censors. Finally, there is this business of drug testing, which will have to come first. I will be posting a drug petition on this site and sending it out to quite a few people. The USCF leadership and the Kirsan toady Kelleher cannot be permitted to get away with de facto support of out-of-competition testing and, indeed, drug testing in general. It is time to form a committee to hit the Federation politicians with the only weapon we have: a widely circulated petition to deny them funds from chessplayers. I am willing to serve on the committee from afar, and I hope there will be a few volunteers here. Meanwhile, I will be sending out quite a few private emails trying to organize a movement to circulate petitions at tournaments and in USCF affiliated clubs. We can no longer put off this battle. The arrogant Kelleher nonsense, which was so contemptuous of our intelligence and credulity, must be answered with action. Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 83) "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug testing will not be able to play chess. At the moment, I would have to freely admit there are drugs which theoretically COULD affect cognitive performance, but we have NO real scientific proof that anything can positively affect cognitive performance and consequently, chess." -- Dr. Stephen Press, vice- chairman FIDE Medical Commission Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, shall we? There is no demonstrable drug problem in chess. There is not even a claimed drug problem in chess. There is not even, as we shall see, a claim that there could be a drug problem in chess. There is only a claim that IF there might someday be a drug that affects cognition, then there could possibly be a drug problem in chess. We have a "could" conditioned on an "if." Wow! Yours, Larry Parr           Date: 04 Dec 2007 22:51:31 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 4, 2:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > our nearly-an-IM was in a perfect position to not only > > spot the real source of the problem, but perhaps to even > > suggest a simple fix which would not harm Fritz' results > > in any way. Bad habits die hard, and when one is in the > > habit of mindlessly aping others in an effort to try and > > /appear/ to be st, the facts stand no chance. IM INNES GOES "QUACK"ERS After reading that "Fritz" could not solve a mate in two moves, I punched it into my version 5.32 and presto, Fritz solved it instantly; I had set it to "infinite" analysis mode, even though it does have a mate-finder mode. But other programs had difficulty in that they stopped analyzing upon spotting a longer mate. Why would a programmer have his creation stop analyzing like this, I wondered. Clearly, in infinite mode there is no time pressure, nothing to cause a quick-and-dirty solution to enter the fray. Then it hit me: this is much like the way in which programmers have always handled the chess openings. Shoddy work, optimized for results -- and especially results against their closest rivals. IMO, while in infinite mode no program should stop analyzing like that. Especially when it has not found a mate-in-one, but rather a longer mate which the programmer must know is not necessarily the shortest. It's shoddy workmanship. But so is aping a claim made by someone else without bothering to check it's validity -- as nearly-an-IM Innes did. Parroting others is cute when performed by a bird-brain, perhaps even an impressive feat; but humans ought to have a somewhat higher standard. No one can take back that move-- it's in the past. But maybe the nearly-an-IM could think twice the next time, before he once again /mindlessly parrots/ some lunacy he happens to have overheard. If the turds at the bottom of the pack were to raise their standards a tad, who knows but that middle rats like LP might feel pressed in turn to raise their own standards a hair? In due time, the process might even have a positive effect on chief rats like LE and RK. Never underestimate the power of small turds. -- help bot             Date: 05 Dec 2007 07:37:20 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:6d11c8c0-72e0-416b-8904-67701cc6e43b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 4, 2:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > our nearly-an-IM was in a perfect position to not only >> > spot the real source of the problem, but perhaps to even >> > suggest a simple fix which would not harm Fritz' results >> > in any way. Bad habits die hard, and when one is in the >> > habit of mindlessly aping others in an effort to try and >> > /appear/ to be st, the facts stand no chance. > > > IM INNES GOES "QUACK"ERS > > > After reading that "Fritz" could not solve a mate > in two moves, that's the trouble with newsgroups - since this is now the 7th time I have written about an initial problem with Fritz 10... > I punched it into my version 5.32 and here follows unother 300 off-topic words by corn-crackers, someone who gets laughs from others who can't read either, but who are of course, ready to correct the record, by 'punching' it... etc this reminds me of Mussolini's famous defence of Stalingrad ch as rendered in the beach-boys' song, wa-wa, doo-doo, screach ... baby! pi > and presto, Fritz solved it instantly; I had set it > to "infinite" analysis mode, even though it does > have a mate-finder mode. > > But other programs had difficulty in that they > stopped analyzing upon spotting a longer mate. > Why would a programmer have his creation > stop analyzing like this, I wondered. Clearly, in > infinite mode there is no time pressure, nothing > to cause a quick-and-dirty solution to enter the > fray. Then it hit me: this is much like the way > in which programmers have always handled the > chess openings. Shoddy work, optimized for > results -- and especially results against their > closest rivals. > > IMO, while in infinite mode no program should > stop analyzing like that. Especially when it has > not found a mate-in-one, but rather a longer > mate which the programmer must know is not > necessarily the shortest. It's shoddy > workmanship. But so is aping a claim made by > someone else without bothering to check it's > validity -- as nearly-an-IM Innes did. Parroting > others is cute when performed by a bird-brain, > perhaps even an impressive feat; but humans > ought to have a somewhat higher standard. > > No one can take back that move-- it's in the > past. But maybe the nearly-an-IM could think > twice the next time, before he once again > /mindlessly parrots/ some lunacy he happens to > have overheard. If the turds at the bottom of the > pack were to raise their standards a tad, who > knows but that middle rats like LP might feel > pressed in turn to raise their own standards a > hair? In due time, the process might even have > a positive effect on chief rats like LE and RK. > Never underestimate the power of small turds. > > > -- help bot > > >           Date: 03 Dec 2007 22:26:31 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 3, 11:42 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > > No. I do not understand your contention since my own is that Fritz 10 has a > > problem, which did not exist in Fritz 9, and what you need to understand > > more than that? > > ?? Fritz 10 /did/ have this problem. But maybe I am too tired to understand What the nearly-an-IM is trying hard to avoid saying is that he carelessly parroted a claim without even bothering to check its validity for himself. Instead of detecting the problem and suggesting that programmers fix it so even analysis mode sorts shorter mates to the top of the stack, he just mindlessly aped a faulty claim made by someone else (deja vu). As a self-described master of computer programming, our nearly-an-IM was in a perfect position to not only spot the real source of the problem, but perhaps to even suggest a simple fix which would not harm Fritz' results in any way. Bad habits die hard, and when one is in the habit of mindlessly aping others in an effort to try and /appear/ to be st, the facts stand no chance. -- help bot             Date: 04 Dec 2007 14:18:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:229c4fef-de1e-446c-88c2-75218cacca16@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 3, 11:42 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > No. I do not understand your contention since my own is that Fritz 10 >> > has a >> > problem, which did not exist in Fritz 9, and what you need to >> > understand >> > more than that? >> > ?? Fritz 10 /did/ have this problem. But maybe I am too tired to >> > understand > > > What the nearly-an-IM is trying hard to avoid saying > is that he carelessly parroted a claim without even > bothering to check its validity for himself. Instead of > detecting the problem and suggesting that programmers > fix it so even analysis mode sorts shorter mates to the > top of the stack, he just mindlessly aped a faulty claim > made by someone else (deja vu). > > As a self-described master of computer programming, Ducks! What a bunch of quacking ducks! - none of whom know much, and mouth off more than the French champion, and Kosteniuk too! If anyone actually knows anything after studying it, then, this too will appear absurd to corn-fed & cohorts. PI > our nearly-an-IM was in a perfect position to not only > spot the real source of the problem, but perhaps to even > suggest a simple fix which would not harm Fritz' results > in any way. Bad habits die hard, and when one is in the > habit of mindlessly aping others in an effort to try and > /appear/ to be st, the facts stand no chance. > > > -- help bot           Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:42:25 From: SBD Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 3, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > No. I do not understand your contention since my own is that Fritz 10 has a > problem, which did not exist in Fritz 9, and what you need to understand > more than that? > ?? Fritz 10 /did/ have this problem. But maybe I am too tired to understand > you Steven, since I tend to see the same as the 2 GMs who reported it, which > were not about 'shoulds' and about what was before them. But Phil, Fritz has long had this "problem" - if I am understanding you correctly - in that analysis mode won't pick up the forced mate in 2 in all occasions but will instead announce a mate in 3 or 4; however the mate solve module will find the mate in 2 in a flash. It isn't a problem particular to F10..... ChessBase does have a page by Steve Lopez on the mate solve module if you visit their help pages.             Date: 04 Dec 2007 14:15:16 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 3, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> No. I do not understand your contention since my own is that Fritz 10 has >> a >> problem, which did not exist in Fritz 9, and what you need to understand >> more than that? >> ?? Fritz 10 /did/ have this problem. But maybe I am too tired to >> understand >> you Steven, since I tend to see the same as the 2 GMs who reported it, >> which >> were not about 'shoulds' and about what was before them. > > But Phil, Fritz has long had this "problem" - if I am understanding > you correctly - in that analysis mode won't pick up the forced mate in > 2 in all occasions but will instead announce a mate in 3 or 4; however > the mate solve module will find the mate in 2 in a flash. Well, are you agreeing or disagreeing with something? If you play one mode, then the other is inoperative? Is that your sense? > It isn't a > problem particular to F10..... Since it was fixed... PI >ChessBase does have a page by Steve > Lopez on the mate solve module if you visit their help pages. >           Date: 03 Dec 2007 11:32:55 From: SBD Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 3, 5:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > On Dec 2, 6:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fact: Fritz could not solve a mate in 2. Period. > > > Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate > > solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same > > program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" > > and "mate solving mode." > > The program is just playing along and it doesn't see a mate in two - and > then someone has to switch its mode? And I seem unable to see that? But how is that different from a human looking for the best move, and finding a "mate" but not the shortest mate, or someone using Fritz in "crippled mode" where it sees relatively weaker moves, but if you change its mode, it could find it? The way I understand it, it stops the search when it finds a forced mate of any kind in analysis mode - but the mate module considers *every single move*, thus finding shorter, often more paradoxical mates. > I am reporting a problem with Fritz 10, that was fixed because it /was/ > pointed out by a succession of people - and it was fixed because it was so. > That's no insult, it is not a discussion, it is plain fact. What was the problem? I am not clear on that, I use Fritz 9. Could you outline the problem in 10, showing how it is different from 9? > I don't know what you are reporting, since the matter of your message is > reliant on that 'seem' above. I will mention the context of the anecdote > just once more, since it 'seems' that many people haven't noticed it. That > any chess engine is completely dependent on its programming, they progammers > and program can make errors, are not infallible - and in less tactical and > more strategic areas like in the MAMS studies they are not actually very > good at all. Well, yes, the computer is not God, it does what it is programmed to do - to analyze, or in the case of the mate module, find the shortest mate. Even in analysis, it has problems, to be sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with solving mates. > > I am bored with suffering the misapprehensions of those who think I wrote > something else, because they cannot read of anything amiss with their god > without going nutz@ and they /need/ to go nutz@ so very often! You may feel paranoid in that manner, but I can't see the problem, neither apparently can anyone else, so clarification is in order - unless you want to add this to your "just blowing smoke up people asses" long list of faux pas. Or again, you mention you are collaborating on a book that may contain this - why not just be a Mensch and indicate you will explain all in your tome? But the simplest explanation is that neither you or Kosteniuk understood the difference between analysis mode and mate solve mode.             Date: 03 Dec 2007 16:10:47 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:8f6c1403-54b0-4e54-9c8d-86798983e5c3@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 3, 5:58 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:[email protected]... >> >> > On Dec 2, 6:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Fact: Fritz could not solve a mate in 2. Period. >> >> > Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate >> > solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same >> > program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" >> > and "mate solving mode." >> >> The program is just playing along and it doesn't see a mate in two - and >> then someone has to switch its mode? And I seem unable to see that? > > But how is that different from a human looking for the best move, and Look - look what you accuse me of, then what you ask me after. How is it different? > finding a "mate" but not the shortest mate, or someone using Fritz in > "crippled mode" where it sees relatively weaker moves, I did not suggest any crippled mode - you did. So are you saying that if Fritz plays the whole game in mate-solving mode it could even get to this point? Why have a game-playing mode, therefore? > but if you > change its mode, it could find it? The way I understand it, it stops > the search when it finds a forced mate of any kind in analysis mode - > but the mate module considers *every single move*, thus finding > shorter, often more paradoxical mates. What does that mean in this instance? It did not do so, seems to be the point. > >> I am reporting a problem with Fritz 10, that was fixed because it /was/ >> pointed out by a succession of people - and it was fixed because it was >> so. >> That's no insult, it is not a discussion, it is plain fact. > > What was the problem? I am not clear on that, I use Fritz 9. Could you > outline the problem in 10, showing how it is different from 9? No. I do not understand your contention since my own is that Fritz 10 has a problem, which did not exist in Fritz 9, and what you need to understand more than that? >> I don't know what you are reporting, since the matter of your message is >> reliant on that 'seem' above. I will mention the context of the anecdote >> just once more, since it 'seems' that many people haven't noticed it. >> That >> any chess engine is completely dependent on its programming, they >> progammers >> and program can make errors, are not infallible - and in less tactical >> and >> more strategic areas like in the MAMS studies they are not actually very >> good at all. > > > Well, yes, the computer is not God, it does what it is programmed to > do - to analyze, or in the case of the mate module, find the shortest > mate. Even in analysis, it has problems, to be sure, but it doesn't > have anything to do with solving mates. ?? Fritz 10 /did/ have this problem. But maybe I am too tired to understand you Steven, since I tend to see the same as the 2 GMs who reported it, which were not about 'shoulds' and about what was before them. >> >> I am bored with suffering the misapprehensions of those who think I wrote >> something else, because they cannot read of anything amiss with their god >> without going nutz@ and they /need/ to go nutz@ so very often! > > > You may feel paranoid in that manner, but I can't see the problem, > neither apparently can anyone else, so clarification is in order - As aboive - 2 GMs reported the problem. Perhaps it something to do with them or with you? In game mode it couldn't find a mate in 2! Fucking hell! How many times do I have to say it? If you want to posit the paranoid nature of those who can say it, then that is rather about your own willingness to apply some intelligence to what is written. > unless you want to add this to your "just blowing smoke up people > asses" long list of faux pas. Well, since you invoke this very American metaphor, I will leave you to those who understand what that means and what any factual basis is. > Or again, you mention you are collaborating on a book that may contain > this - why not just be a Mensch and indicate you will explain all in > your tome? Present to you? Why write such shit about others and still pretend interest in the topic? > But the simplest explanation is that neither you or Kosteniuk > understood the difference between analysis mode and mate solve mode. Yes, that is simple indeed. Thank you for sharing your fascinating opinions. Phil Innes           Date: 03 Dec 2007 07:35:53 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 3, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > GILBERT & SULLIVAN > > >Fa la la, la la la la.> -- help bot > > Neil, > > ... if we may or may not, this once. Of course! Feel free to address me as Neil. > Do you feel in the least dismayed? We feel a > trifle depressed. The wind and snow kept me from cycling yesterday, so yes, I am a trifle 'under the weather.' > You quoted the precise lines from Gilbert that we > had earlier paraphrased. And, to be sure, although no > one here imagined Greg Kennedy to be a literary > lion, even you must concede that his critique > -- one supposes that such is what he meant his > prattling to be -- was a peat bog of mired inanity. I didn't find it worthy of comment. That it was inane I took for granted. > We are certain that you understood Gilbert's > point to be a comment on human nature, indeed perhaps > on nothing more than its velleities, as reckoned by a > clever, classically liberal Victorian wordsmith. Yes, although it's possible Gilbert was making more of a political statement in Iolanthe than we suppose. At some point he cut an aria for Strephon that included some more specific social commentary. Gilbert was always trying to make his fellow creatures wise by gilding the philosophic pill whenever he could. Still, it's a comic opera about fairies and half-fairies ("the upper half, down to the waistcoat") and hard to take too seriously. > Still, how does one go about trying to explain to a > callow Kennedy the assumptions of that wonderful 19th > century world? Do you feel an obligation to do so? I don't. > As some day it may happen that a rectum must be > found, we've got a little list of people who'll not be > missed and are best when not around or, mayhap, placed > firmly under ground. There is that Indiana man/ And > others from his clan./ So let's hatch a plan, okay > yah?/ To dispatch him to far off Numidia./ Scholars > who know their Hannibal/ Can find him a famished > cannibal./ And Fiddle-faddle-fiddle-dee-dee/ That will > be the end of our Greg Kennedy. Goodness, that's awful stuff, Larry. Only a Gilbert, Nash, or Ira Gershwin can get away with the "okay yah" and "Numidia" near-rhymes. Still, it's better than help-botches' verse. > One wonders what Greg would make of Max > Beerbohm's Zuleika Dobson, possibly the most elegantly > fastidious literary work from The Proud Tower that was > pre-World War I Europe? > > Yours, Larry Parr > --- [email protected] wrote: > >help bot View profile > > >More options Nov 29, 10:24 pm > >Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, > >rec.games.chess.misc > >From: help bot <[email protected]> > >Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:24:00 -0800 (PST) > >Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests > > >Reply             Date: 03 Dec 2007 11:15:07 From: Chess One Subject: Victoriana's old clothes & Christmass of yester-year "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:afc33292-f173-40f4-b249-7a4aec78f564@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 3, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> GILBERT & SULLIVAN >> Still, how does one go about trying to explain to a >> callow Kennedy the assumptions of that wonderful 19th >> century world? > > Do you feel an obligation to do so? I don't. This is one of those rare occassions [because snow here too? a foot of it! or is it the approach of Christmas?] where I am tempted to side with corn-fed, not only because of the forced diet of G&S in my youth, and that the duo heartily detested each other - but because that Wonderful World of Victorianism had a very significant dark-side. True, Sir Arthur paid for all his bastards, but money can't buy you love, and while they didn't starve for food, they did for all else. In the matter of G&S's oevre, I am going to side with corn-fed, Henry Miller, and the real Pirates of Penzance who didn't do little ditties in stage-paint and girl's underwear, they were slit your Sassenach throat pirates myansomes! Proper Job! Talking of that place, historians and knights, on www.cornwall.cam in the past few days is the house of Cornish Historian Sir Arthur Quiller Couch. Phil Innes           Date: 03 Dec 2007 03:24:04 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 3, 1:10 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 2, 12:16 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm a much better writer than you, Phil. Deal with it. > > > O! But you protest too much - proving my point, as always. You are the > > author of the phrase, Old English is dead', which unfortunately for you > > indicates 3 things > > > 1) you use 4 words of Old English to make your statement <grin> > > 2) you pretend to some knowledge which you do not have > > 3) on this preposterous basis, you bad mouth other people > > > > As for your > > > chess-playing ability, the less said the better. > > > So shut your fat hole! You are the obsessive character completely blind to > > himself! > > Just for the record, I think most people would agree > that the rantings of nearly-an-IM Innes /here/ suck. Speaking of being "blind to himself", note the Nearly an IM 2450 is still obsessed with my former obesity. I had no idea my losing 140+ pounds would wound him so. If I had known, I would have lost more.           Date: 02 Dec 2007 22:10:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 2, 12:16 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > I'm a much better writer than you, Phil. Deal with it. > > O! But you protest too much - proving my point, as always. You are the > author of the phrase, Old English is dead', which unfortunately for you > indicates 3 things > > 1) you use 4 words of Old English to make your statement <grin> > 2) you pretend to some knowledge which you do not have > 3) on this preposterous basis, you bad mouth other people > > > As for your > > chess-playing ability, the less said the better. > > So shut your fat hole! You are the obsessive character completely blind to > himself! Just for the record, I think most people would agree that the rantings of nearly-an-IM Innes /here/ suck. Further ravings seem to indicate that IM Innes is sometimes talking about his writings in another forum, but comparing the number of unfortunate readers of that to the number who may have purchased an obscure /book/ written by Neil Brennan; it's apples to oranges (though it would still be a very poor method even if it weren't). The idea that the /quality/ of one's writing can be measured by estimating the number of readers is sheer lunacy, so it comes as no surprise when this claptrap is upchucked again and again by the lunatic fringe Evans ratpackers. For the thinking-impaired (the Evans ratpack, et al), consider the circulation of rags like The Inquisitor, when compared to quality stuff like The Daily Planet; The worst rag outsells the best one throughout all of Metropolis! You dunces need to put on your thinking caps if you want to try and tackle this one. A first step might be getting the basics right, like comparing apples to apples or pawns to pawns. -- help bot             Date: 03 Dec 2007 07:53:11 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e1a77618-a22b-4cba-9ac3-ab37817f614c@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 2, 12:16 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I'm a much better writer than you, Phil. Deal with it. >> >> O! But you protest too much - proving my point, as always. You are the >> author of the phrase, Old English is dead', which unfortunately for you >> indicates 3 things >> >> 1) you use 4 words of Old English to make your statement <grin> >> 2) you pretend to some knowledge which you do not have >> 3) on this preposterous basis, you bad mouth other people >> >> > As for your >> > chess-playing ability, the less said the better. >> >> So shut your fat hole! You are the obsessive character completely blind >> to >> himself! > > > Just for the record, I think most people would agree > that the rantings of nearly-an-IM Innes /here/ suck. Another confessional/obsessional by Corn-fed, who coulda been a contendah! > Further ravings seem to indicate that IM Innes is > sometimes talking about his writings in another > forum, but comparing the number of unfortunate > readers of that to the number who may have > purchased an obscure /book/ written by Neil > Brennan; it's apples to oranges (though it would > still be a very poor method even if it weren't). > > The idea that the /quality/ of one's writing can be > measured by estimating the number of readers is > sheer lunacy, so it comes as no surprise when > this claptrap is upchucked again and again by the > lunatic fringe Evans ratpackers. Its a lunacy shared by every reader too! They are all crazy loons out there! > For the thinking-impaired (the Evans ratpack, et al), > consider the circulation of rags like The Inquisitor, > when compared to quality stuff like The Daily Planet; > The worst rag outsells the best one throughout all of > Metropolis! You dunces need to put on your thinking > caps if you want to try and tackle this one. That's right - its not an absolute comparison in all cases, just happens to be this comparison :)) > A first step might be getting the basics right, like like if you want to tell other people what to do and think, get some balls together toown your own name. > comparing apples to apples or pawns to pawns. or people who consistently and successfully try to write about chess, and people who consistently trash them? Phil Innes > > -- help bot > >           Date: 02 Dec 2007 17:59:40 From: SBD Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 2, 6:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Fact: Fritz could not solve a mate in 2. Period. Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" and "mate solving mode." Mate 2 13 has some problems - in a mate in 6 I composed with two piece sacrifices, it could only find one of the lines until prompted to find them with human input (which of course I had already checked with Alybadix and WinChloe). I don't believe there is a mate in 2 Fritz cannot solve unless some retro-rule or legality rule applied to the position. Mate 2.13 does have some problems with helpmate problems, although it works well in general there. Phil, you are just flat wrong, with no evidence to support your position, with others providing evidence totally contrary to your position.. That's no insult, them ain't fightin' words, it is simply the truth. Simply because you keep saying something is true doesn't make it so.             Date: 03 Dec 2007 06:58:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 2, 6:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Fact: Fritz could not solve a mate in 2. Period. > > Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate > solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same > program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" > and "mate solving mode." The program is just playing along and it doesn't see a mate in two - and then someone has to switch its mode? And I seem unable to see that? > Mate 2 13 has some problems - in a mate in 6 I composed with two piece > sacrifices, it could only find one of the lines until prompted to find > them with human input (which of course I had already checked with > Alybadix and WinChloe). I don't believe there is a mate in 2 Fritz > cannot solve unless some retro-rule or legality rule applied to the > position. > > Mate 2.13 does have some problems with helpmate problems, although it > works well in general there. > > Phil, you are just flat wrong, with no evidence to support your > position, with others providing evidence totally contrary to your > position.. That's no insult, them ain't fightin' words, it is simply > the truth. Simply because you keep saying something is true doesn't > make it so. I am reporting a problem with Fritz 10, that was fixed because it /was/ pointed out by a succession of people - and it was fixed because it was so. That's no insult, it is not a discussion, it is plain fact. I don't know what you are reporting, since the matter of your message is reliant on that 'seem' above. I will mention the context of the anecdote just once more, since it 'seems' that many people haven't noticed it. That any chess engine is completely dependent on its programming, they progammers and program can make errors, are not infallible - and in less tactical and more strategic areas like in the MAMS studies they are not actually very good at all. I am bored with suffering the misapprehensions of those who think I wrote something else, because they cannot read of anything amiss with their god without going nutz@ and they /need/ to go nutz@ so very often! Phil Innes               Date: 03 Dec 2007 08:35:30 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:58:18 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >> Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate >> solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same >> program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" >> and "mate solving mode." >The program is just playing along and it doesn't see a mate in two - and >then someone has to switch its mode? And I seem unable to see that? In the standard game of chess, is a mate in two worth more than a mate in four? Are you unable to answer that? >> Phil, you are just flat wrong, with no evidence to support your >> position, with others providing evidence totally contrary to your >> position.. That's no insult, them ain't fightin' words, it is simply >> the truth. Simply because you keep saying something is true doesn't >> make it so. > >I am reporting a problem with Fritz 10, that was fixed because it /was/ >pointed out by a succession of people - and it was fixed because it was so. >That's no insult, it is not a discussion, it is plain fact. Oh, so *now* it's "Fritz 10", not just plan "Fritz"? Well, at least we've forced you to be a wee bit more precise. I have the latest version of Fritz 10. I double-checked upgrade status with the PlayChess server just before posting. If you start it in standard game mode, it finds the mate in 4 and quits. If you start it in problem mode, it finds the mate and 2 and quits. So, what's been "fixed" ? Why do you say something was fixed? >I don't know what you are reporting, since the matter of your message is >reliant on that 'seem' above. I will mention the context of the anecdote >just once more, since it 'seems' that many people haven't noticed it. That >any chess engine is completely dependent on its programming, they progammers >and program can make errors, are not infallible - and in less tactical and >more strategic areas like in the MAMS studies they are not actually very >good at all. Nobody disputes the fallibility of programmers. Nobody disputes bugs in Fritz 10 (I found one myself with the display refresh). Your original post had the sensationalist context that here was a weird problem that stumped Fritz. When we look, we find that what you reported was a mere side-effect of a deliberate optimization choice. >I am bored with suffering the misapprehensions of those who think I wrote >something else, because they cannot read of anything amiss with their god >without going nutz@ and they /need/ to go nutz@ so very often! > >Phil Innes >                 Date: 03 Dec 2007 12:00:28 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:58:18 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Yes it can unless you are somehow differentiating Fritz and its mate >>> solving module, Mate 2.13. But I believe they are part of the same >>> program. You seem unable to see the difference between "analysis mode" >>> and "mate solving mode." > >>The program is just playing along and it doesn't see a mate in two - and >>then someone has to switch its mode? And I seem unable to see that? > > In the standard game of chess, is a mate in two worth more than a mate > in four? Are you unable to answer that? Certainly Mike. A mate in two is far better, since the other guy has two moves less to conduct his own mate. Did you mean a 'forced' mate? > Oh, so *now* O! It always was. > it's "Fritz 10", not just plan "Fritz"? Well, at least > we've forced you to be a wee bit more precise. It seems I have forced you to know what you are objecting to, since I seem to keep up with these things better than the priesthood, and distinctly remember advising you to look at the Kosteniuk site before continuing... since after all, not all objections can be covered in advance. > I have the latest version of Fritz 10. I double-checked upgrade > status with the PlayChess server just before posting. If you start it > in standard game mode, it finds the mate in 4 and quits. If you start > it in problem mode, it finds the mate and 2 and quits. > > So, what's been "fixed" ? Why do you say something was fixed? Why do you trouble yourself to ask me? If you want to know something, don't abuse the people who tell you - otherwise they could with some justice think you were better off finding out for yourself. >>I don't know what you are reporting, since the matter of your message is >>reliant on that 'seem' above. I will mention the context of the anecdote >>just once more, since it 'seems' that many people haven't noticed it. That >>any chess engine is completely dependent on its programming, they >>progammers >>and program can make errors, are not infallible - and in less tactical and >>more strategic areas like in the MAMS studies they are not actually very >>good at all. > > Nobody disputes the fallibility of programmers. Nobody disputes bugs > in Fritz 10 (I found one myself with the display refresh). The one mentioned here was fixed. > Your original post had the sensationalist context that here was a > weird problem that stumped Fritz. When we look, we find that what you > reported was a mere side-effect of a deliberate optimization choice. It was a weird problem that stumped Fritz! What is your contention - in the pre-fix, it would solve one mode, not the other? If so, okay. >>I am bored with suffering the misapprehensions of those who think I wrote >>something else, because they cannot read of anything amiss with their god >>without going nutz@ and they /need/ to go nutz@ so very often! Set it up to solve the Fortress problem I just posed Sanny. Not (a) which is no fortress, since the K and Kt are seperated, but (b) where no-one could prise them apart for 150 years. That /is/ a problem which Fritz solved. Phil Innes >>Phil Innes >>                   Date: 03 Dec 2007 09:37:37 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:00:28 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >> In the standard game of chess, is a mate in two worth more than a mate >> in four? Are you unable to answer that? >Certainly Mike. A mate in two is far better, since the other guy has two >moves less to conduct his own mate. Did you mean a 'forced' mate? It was certainly clear from context that we were discussing "forced" mate. If the position in question occurred on move 49 of a 50-move situation, the mate in two seems better. Surprised you didn't mention that. I'll grant you, in a timed game with the flag teetering, a mate in two, all things equal, is more practical since it takes less time to implement. BUT, in the same timed game situation, if one spots a forced mate in 4, the person on the move would be a fool to start examining counter-intuitive sacs to find a shorter mate. Although, if you are thinking on your opponent's time, it might make sense. From the standpoint of the game's goal, they are the same. You get one point for each. >> So, what's been "fixed" ? Why do you say something was fixed? >> Your original post had the sensationalist context that here was a >> weird problem that stumped Fritz. When we look, we find that what you >> reported was a mere side-effect of a deliberate optimization choice. >It was a weird problem that stumped Fritz! I haven't checked this, but my guess is that it's NOT a weird problem, but a representative of a whole class of positions where obvious first moves lead to forced mate in "x", but counter-intuitive first moves lead to a shorter mate. In other words, there should be many positions where Fritz 10 behaves this way. In game mode, when it finds a forced mate, it stops looking. Just as a human being would do in most positions in a normal OTB game. >What is your contention - in the pre-fix, it would solve one mode, not the >other? If so, okay. My contention is it *still* works this way. In game mode, it wins the game with a forced mate in 4. In problem mode, it solves the problem. So, where's the fix? >Set it up to solve the Fortress problem I just posed Sanny. Not (a) which is >no fortress, since the K and Kt are seperated, but (b) where no-one could >prise them apart for 150 years. That /is/ a problem which Fritz solved. I agree, this is much more interesting. I will leave Rybka to crank a while on it in standard game mode while I go out for breakfast.                     Date: 03 Dec 2007 15:51:44 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:00:28 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> In the standard game of chess, is a mate in two worth more than a mate >>> in four? Are you unable to answer that? > >>Certainly Mike. A mate in two is far better, since the other guy has two >>moves less to conduct his own mate. Did you mean a 'forced' mate? > > It was certainly clear from context that we were discussing "forced" > mate. So say so. Otherwise we get Kingstonite Kontext, where, as ani ful no, 1800 means 2300. > If the position in question occurred on move 49 of a 50-move > situation, the mate in two seems better. Surprised you didn't mention > that. If the position we mentioned was not noticed after 49 moves of search, the computer may not enter that line at all, since the 50th move by the other player spells doom - no? > I'll grant you, in a timed game with the flag teetering, a mate in > two, all things equal, is more practical since it takes less time to > implement. > > BUT, in the same timed game situation, if one spots a forced mate in > 4, the person on the move would be a fool to start examining > counter-intuitive sacs to find a shorter mate. If there is a force, then surely! > Although, if you are > thinking on your opponent's time, it might make sense. > > From the standpoint of the game's goal, they are the same. You get > one point for each. > > >>> So, what's been "fixed" ? Why do you say something was fixed? > >>> Your original post had the sensationalist context that here was a >>> weird problem that stumped Fritz. When we look, we find that what you >>> reported was a mere side-effect of a deliberate optimization choice. > >>It was a weird problem that stumped Fritz! > > I haven't checked this, but my guess is that it's NOT a weird problem, > but a representative of a whole class of positions where obvious first > moves lead to forced mate in "x", but counter-intuitive first moves > lead to a shorter mate. I am saying that unless it is a force, then there is something wrongo! And so when computer engines are wrongo, then we should not suppose they are infallible. That is all I said initially - it may have been complicated since when there is not a forced mate, then computers still do not choose a line which leads to conclusive result - but the point: just because fritz says +4.6 does not mean anything much if 5 moves later it is 0.0 ! > In other words, there should be many positions where Fritz 10 behaves > this way. In game mode, when it finds a forced mate, it stops > looking. Just as a human being would do in most positions in a normal > OTB game. Sure, depending on their art. >>What is your contention - in the pre-fix, it would solve one mode, not the >>other? If so, okay. > > My contention is it *still* works this way. In game mode, it wins the > game with a forced mate in 4. In problem mode, it solves the problem. > So, where's the fix? ?What? What are you expressing? Which way do you use your program? In game mode it misses a mate in 2. That is the problem. If there were not a forced mate in 4 it would STILL miss the mate in 2. Therefore ignore that line of play as it foresaw it at any ply-depth, unless all other lines rendered a lesser evaluation. <right? > >>Set it up to solve the Fortress problem I just posed Sanny. Not (a) which >>is >>no fortress, since the K and Kt are seperated, but (b) where no-one could >>prise them apart for 150 years. That /is/ a problem which Fritz solved. > > I agree, this is much more interesting. I will leave Rybka to crank a > while on it in standard game mode while I go out for breakfast. Cool! This [laugh] will be very interesting, and I hope we ca compare Rybka version X with other programs. Phil Innes           Date: 02 Dec 2007 05:30:15 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 2, 7:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > it is amusing to note that all their complaints seem to be directed where > their own talents have not reached... I'm a much better writer than you, Phil. Deal with it. As for your chess-playing ability, the less said the better.             Date: 02 Dec 2007 12:16:56 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:bd608ce3-306c-4d19-b103-8415e68d3e08@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 2, 7:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> it is amusing to note that all their complaints seem to be directed where >> their own talents have not reached... > > I'm a much better writer than you, Phil. Deal with it. O! But you protest too much - proving my point, as always. You are the author of the phrase, Old English is dead', which unfortunately for you indicates 3 things 1) you use 4 words of Old English to make your statement <grin > 2) you pretend to some knowledge which you do not have 3) on this preposterous basis, you bad mouth other people > As for your > chess-playing ability, the less said the better. So shut your fat hole! You are the obsessive character completely blind to himself! I wonder if you have written more trash about myself than the FSS had written about Sloan? You write articles on dead C players for the Pen Woodpusher, circulation 83 people a month, right? That is some sort of journalism, I suppose, and just because 65,000 people read my writing, doesn't mean I am better. [ROFL] Phil Innes           Date: 01 Dec 2007 22:03:45 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 2, 12:19 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Reshevsky - Evans > > > Second Rosenwald Tournament > > > New York 1955 > > > "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game > > > continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored > > > the full point." > > > Look at the move number. Is it not likely that > > they were in some sort of time scramble? > > Oh yes, they were, as Chess Life pointed out at the time. Chess Lies was around back in 1955? Wow. That probably makes it the oldest lies magazine in America! > But I merely > cited the game to show the silliness of Innes' 'Fritz couldn't solve > mate in two. Period.' nonsense. Nearly-an-IM Innes churns out more utter nonsense than anyone could possibly keep track of; that is why I try to pinpoint the rare instances where something he writes here has an actual basis in reality, such as for instance his complaints regarding chess programs and their lack of "understanding" in the opening phase. As a regular user of programs with no openings books installed, I have noticed this myself, and even the drinking-and-betting GM, whatshisname, concurred (though perhaps more for psychological reasons than on account of any rational observations). To me, it seems absurd that fans of Rybka, for instance, write as though they actually /desire/ a contest between book-monkey openings crafters, between the men hired separately by the programmers of top contenders like Zap and Rybka to create by-rote databases for regurgitation-on-demand. From my point of view, a better approach would be to try and "teach" the programs to play /every/ phase of the game for themselves, and minimize as much as possible any outside intervention where by-rote moves are foist upon the machine, effectively resigning oneself to failure. On this issue, IM Innes has expounded on his theory of many hundreds of rating points disappearing into thin air were any of the top programs to be placed on their own devices in the opening phase, but it goes without saying that he has no substance with which to back his claims. Yet by the same token, defenders of the status quo have nothing but pomposity and fear on their side, to back any claims to the contrary. Irrational claims like "Fritz can't solve mate-in-two" seem to easily slip past the intellectual defenses of people like IM Innes, without detection. This quality is what makes him a valuable member of the Evans ratpack, and loyal, if feeble-minded ally of Mr. Parr. Yet in this particular case it was not merely dullness of wit which brought about the misunderstanding in question; it also was necessary that several chess programmers blundered in not seeing that users will /expect/ a shorter mate to be searched for and given priority over longer ones; after all, once a program finds a winning move, it just sits there, twiddling its subroutines. -- help bot             Date: 02 Dec 2007 07:46:35 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Fact: Fritz could not solve a mate in 2. Period. koward kennedy who cannot own his own name, has taken this fact, added 'logic' supplied by abusenik Brennan, and written 5,000 words [so far] of abuse to the people who pointed it out, kosteniuk, skripchenko and myself. it doesn't really matter what the ostensible subject is, these hysterical nutters write the same stuff anyway it is amusing to note that all their complaints seem to be directed where their own talents have not reached, which is a sort of back-handed compliment to those they serially abuse - they seem to think that others owe them an education, since they are too lazy to conduct their own phil innes "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Dec 2, 12:19 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Reshevsky - Evans >> > > Second Rosenwald Tournament >> > > New York 1955 >> > > "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game >> > > continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored >> > > the full point." >> >> > Look at the move number. Is it not likely that >> > they were in some sort of time scramble? >> >> Oh yes, they were, as Chess Life pointed out at the time. > > Chess Lies was around back in 1955? Wow. That > probably makes it the oldest lies magazine in America! > > >> But I merely >> cited the game to show the silliness of Innes' 'Fritz couldn't solve >> mate in two. Period.' nonsense. > > Nearly-an-IM Innes churns out more utter nonsense > than anyone could possibly keep track of; that is why I > try to pinpoint the rare instances where something he > writes here has an actual basis in reality, such as for > instance his complaints regarding chess programs and > their lack of "understanding" in the opening phase. > > As a regular user of programs with no openings books > installed, I have noticed this myself, and even the > drinking-and-betting GM, whatshisname, concurred > (though perhaps more for psychological reasons than > on account of any rational observations). To me, it seems > absurd that fans of Rybka, for instance, write as though > they actually /desire/ a contest between book-monkey > openings crafters, between the men hired separately by > the programmers of top contenders like Zap and Rybka > to create by-rote databases for regurgitation-on-demand. > > From my point of view, a better approach would be to > try and "teach" the programs to play /every/ phase of the > game for themselves, and minimize as much as possible > any outside intervention where by-rote moves are foist > upon the machine, effectively resigning oneself to failure. > > On this issue, IM Innes has expounded on his theory > of many hundreds of rating points disappearing into thin > air were any of the top programs to be placed on their > own devices in the opening phase, but it goes without > saying that he has no substance with which to back > his claims. Yet by the same token, defenders of the > status quo have nothing but pomposity and fear on > their side, to back any claims to the contrary. > > Irrational claims like "Fritz can't solve mate-in-two" > seem to easily slip past the intellectual defenses of > people like IM Innes, without detection. This quality > is what makes him a valuable member of the Evans > ratpack, and loyal, if feeble-minded ally of Mr. Parr. > Yet in this particular case it was not merely dullness > of wit which brought about the misunderstanding in > question; it also was necessary that several chess > programmers blundered in not seeing that users will > /expect/ a shorter mate to be searched for and given > priority over longer ones; after all, once a program > finds a winning move, it just sits there, twiddling its > subroutines. > > > -- help bot > > > >           Date: 01 Dec 2007 21:19:09 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 10:59 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Dec 1, 9:21 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Fritz 10 couldn't solve a mate in 2. Period! That's all. > > According to Innes' 'logic', Reshevsky couldn't solve mate in one. > > Period. That's all. > > >http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/0027_conserving/conserving.shtml > > > Reshevsky - Evans > > Second Rosenwald Tournament > > New York 1955 > > "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game > > continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored > > the full point." > > Look at the move number. Is it not likely that > they were in some sort of time scramble? Oh yes, they were, as Chess Life pointed out at the time. But I merely cited the game to show the silliness of Innes' 'Fritz couldn't solve mate in two. Period.' nonsense. > LE: "If he sealed Q-N8 mate, I'll give up. But on > any other move, I'll play on, just to make it look like > a real struggle." > > --- > > In the often obsessed-over tournament where > GM Reshevsky did not prevail over a host of > powerful Russian players, one can detect in his > play a severe weakness in the opening phase. > For reasons which are difficult to comprehend, > he fought his way back and achieved respectable > results, in spite of this great handicap against the > world's top players. > > But when replaying a few of the games between > GM Evans and GM Reshevsky, the same thing > can be said in reverse: at times it appears as > though a young Larry Evans was deliberately > throwing the game in the opening, but somehow > he once managed to salvage a draw by a > spectacular sacrifice. To me, this highlights the > impact of psychological issues; when one is > afraid of the opponent, he can seemingly do no > wrong over the board; every attack is destined to > succeed, and careful preparations are a needless > waste of time. > > -- help bot           Date: 01 Dec 2007 19:59:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 9:21 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > Fritz 10 couldn't solve a mate in 2. Period! That's all. > According to Innes' 'logic', Reshevsky couldn't solve mate in one. > Period. That's all. > > http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/0027_conserving/conserving.shtml > > Reshevsky - Evans > Second Rosenwald Tournament > New York 1955 > "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game > continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored > the full point." Look at the move number. Is it not likely that they were in some sort of time scramble? LE: "If he sealed Q-N8 mate, I'll give up. But on any other move, I'll play on, just to make it look like a real struggle." --- In the often obsessed-over tournament where GM Reshevsky did not prevail over a host of powerful Russian players, one can detect in his play a severe weakness in the opening phase. For reasons which are difficult to comprehend, he fought his way back and achieved respectable results, in spite of this great handicap against the world's top players. But when replaying a few of the games between GM Evans and GM Reshevsky, the same thing can be said in reverse: at times it appears as though a young Larry Evans was deliberately throwing the game in the opening, but somehow he once managed to salvage a draw by a spectacular sacrifice. To me, this highlights the impact of psychological issues; when one is afraid of the opponent, he can seemingly do no wrong over the board; every attack is destined to succeed, and careful preparations are a needless waste of time. -- help bot           Date: 01 Dec 2007 06:22:33 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 9:58 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > Could you be polite for once in your life .... I guess we know the answer to that.           Date: 01 Dec 2007 06:21:17 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Dec 1, 8:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Fritz 10 couldn't solve a mate in 2. Period! That's all. According to Innes' 'logic', Reshevsky couldn't solve mate in one. Period. That's all. http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/0027_conserving/conserving.shtml Reshevsky - Evans Second Rosenwald Tournament New York 1955 "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored the full point."             Date: 01 Dec 2007 11:37:49 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:3c66763a-406e-4f23-88e8-af5c09d0c21b@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 1, 8:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fritz 10 couldn't solve a mate in 2. Period! That's all. > > According to Innes' 'logic', Nope - Brennan things facts are 'logic' and therefore continues to entertain us with his *special* understanding. PI > Reshevsky couldn't solve mate in one. > Period. That's all. > > http://www.chessarch.com/excavations/0027_conserving/conserving.shtml > > Reshevsky - Evans > Second Rosenwald Tournament > New York 1955 > "Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game > continued another twenty-three moves before the older player scored > the full point."           Date: 30 Nov 2007 18:58:56 From: SBD Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 5:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > > I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does > > seem bizarre.... > > many things 'seem' to those who don't know nuthin, what is that to me? > > maybe someone will put something up against their 'seems' since otherwise > they 'seem' rather lame to me, and certainly to alexandra! > > no takers, really? :) > > every son of a bitch has a 'seems' but when it comes down to it, its usually > pure Kingstonite Phil, this isn't a fight, or have anything to do with Kingston. I just can't see why you would not share the position you say GM Kosteniuk sent you that Fritz could not solve. Sometimes things really are that simple. Even if you have a reason for not sharing it that you care not to name, why not simply state that (perhaps Kosteniuk wants to publish an article on it, show it at an exhibition, etc.) instead of making these sort of comments about "don't know nuthin" Could you be polite for once in your life and say, "For reasons I care not to divulge, I do not wish to show the position."?             Date: 01 Dec 2007 08:21:19 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 30, 5:26 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does >> > seem bizarre.... >> >> many things 'seem' to those who don't know nuthin, what is that to me? >> >> maybe someone will put something up against their 'seems' since otherwise >> they 'seem' rather lame to me, and certainly to alexandra! >> >> no takers, really? :) >> >> every son of a bitch has a 'seems' but when it comes down to it, its >> usually >> pure Kingstonite > > > Phil, this isn't a fight, or have anything to do with Kingston. I just > can't see why you would not share the position you say GM Kosteniuk > sent you that Fritz could not solve. Because he has gone and found it himself. And he still can't admit it is a problem - its just another weak player triumphing over their own state and talking far beyond their knowledge - not to learn anything, but to rubbish learning in chess. Haven't you noticed the hysterical reactions and 'reasons' why strong players are no longer necessary now that 'we' have chess programs? [lol] > Sometimes things really are that > simple. Even if you have a reason for not sharing it that you care not > to name, why not simply state that (perhaps Kosteniuk wants to publish > an article on it, show it at an exhibition, etc.) instead of making > these sort of comments about "don't know nuthin" Why not take your own advice, and don't give advice to others? :))) > Could you be polite for once in your life and say, "For reasons I care > not to divulge, I do not wish to show the position."? I already wrote that anyone who actually was interested could find out, and I did write it in my column, and Kosteniuk at her site.Neither are hard to find. Its just easier to mouth off that they don't exist, because some people in newsgroups don't know nuthin! They are not able to engager in chess conversations, and the likes of Murray and Corn-fed and Brennan ALWAYS abuse those with any more knowledge than themselves. Their posts very rarely do not abuse others. So - if you are interested in this subject, then I ask you the same as them - if I present it to you, as a 'bet', then what's your own stake? Fritz 10 couldn't solve a mate in 2. Period! That's all. Computers are far from infallible guides to right play, but they are helpful. What I 'attack' are more absolutist evaluations of the computer, by people who won't spend 60 seconds research before once again not sparing us their personal point of view. If you want to engage that idiocy on its own terms, go ahead. Phil Innes           Date: 30 Nov 2007 15:30:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 1:19 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > Now sometimes people don't use Fritz's mate solving mode - when I was > writing my column I got all kinds of mail from people who claimed that > there was no mate in 2 or 3, but that there was one in 3 or 4. The > analysis mode finds mates quickly instead of finding the quickest > mate, especially in problems of 2 to 4 moves. I have noticed a similar problem with other programs as well. One has popped up a mate-in-X during normal analysis, then change its mind and gone to (X + 1), for instance. > Y Afek, the FM and world class study composer, wrote an article in EG > about a tournament that had a problem for solving each day for the > spectators. Many would submit incorrect answers, claim no mate in x, > etc, and it was finally realized that these folks were using Fritz > (and not even correctly!) instead of solving the problems themselves. > I believe the CB people themselves gave the same explanation as I did > above - finds mates quickly, which Afek critiqued - however, that > strikes me as pragmatic and similar to how humans would proceed - in a > game, do you care that you missed a mate in 3 when you see a forced > mate in 4? Yes, I do. *If* I took the time to search for the best move, and if I was not in severe time pressure, it would bother me that I could not see a simple mate-in-three. Not long ago, I missed precisely that, a forced mate-in-three, and some other duffer pointed out the correct move (but as a mate-in-two, missing an obvious zwichenzug) after the game. > The mate solving mode in Fritz will miss continuations in the play, > mostly in longmovers, and it botches helpmates occasionally. And as > Mike notes, there are problems in retro-analysis, e.p., sometimes, but > not that often can computers be "fooled" in this manner. Ah, but Fritz is not the problem here; the problem here is that people are taking IM Innes seriously. LOL -- help bot           Date: 30 Nov 2007 10:19:48 From: SBD Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 30, 10:16 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't > exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing > smoke. We both know that. > > Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program) > couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of > computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve > any conceivable mate in two. I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does seem bizarre.... Now sometimes people don't use Fritz's mate solving mode - when I was writing my column I got all kinds of mail from people who claimed that there was no mate in 2 or 3, but that there was one in 3 or 4. The analysis mode finds mates quickly instead of finding the quickest mate, especially in problems of 2 to 4 moves. Y Afek, the FM and world class study composer, wrote an article in EG about a tournament that had a problem for solving each day for the spectators. Many would submit incorrect answers, claim no mate in x, etc, and it was finally realized that these folks were using Fritz (and not even correctly!) instead of solving the problems themselves. I believe the CB people themselves gave the same explanation as I did above - finds mates quickly, which Afek critiqued - however, that strikes me as pragmatic and similar to how humans would proceed - in a game, do you care that you missed a mate in 3 when you see a forced mate in 4? Maybe a little. The mate solving mode in Fritz will miss continuations in the play, mostly in longmovers, and it botches helpmates occasionally. And as Mike notes, there are problems in retro-analysis, e.p., sometimes, but not that often can computers be "fooled" in this manner. > > Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't > "understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or > one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out > be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have > been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us > one of those little gems. > > But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve?? > No way.             Date: 30 Nov 2007 18:26:23 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Fritz failed, was Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:93906508-b5f6-4b4b-a66c-235be7bae2e2@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 30, 10:16 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Playing coy, are we? We aren't gonna find it, Phil. It doesn't >> exist. There ain't so such position. Never was. You were blowing >> smoke. We both know that. >> >> Your claim that Fritz (or any current generation chess program) >> couldn't solve a mate in two reveals your complete ignorance of >> computer chess. An old Atari chess program from years ago could solve >> any conceivable mate in two. > > I would like to see the position. Phil's reluctance to provide it does > seem bizarre.... many things 'seem' to those who don't know nuthin, what is that to me? maybe someone will put something up against their 'seems' since otherwise they 'seem' rather lame to me, and certainly to alexandra! no takers, really? :) every son of a bitch has a 'seems' but when it comes down to it, its usually pure Kingstonite PI > Now sometimes people don't use Fritz's mate solving mode - when I was > writing my column I got all kinds of mail from people who claimed that > there was no mate in 2 or 3, but that there was one in 3 or 4. The > analysis mode finds mates quickly instead of finding the quickest > mate, especially in problems of 2 to 4 moves. > > Y Afek, the FM and world class study composer, wrote an article in EG > about a tournament that had a problem for solving each day for the > spectators. Many would submit incorrect answers, claim no mate in x, > etc, and it was finally realized that these folks were using Fritz > (and not even correctly!) instead of solving the problems themselves. > I believe the CB people themselves gave the same explanation as I did > above - finds mates quickly, which Afek critiqued - however, that > strikes me as pragmatic and similar to how humans would proceed - in a > game, do you care that you missed a mate in 3 when you see a forced > mate in 4? Maybe a little. > > The mate solving mode in Fritz will miss continuations in the play, > mostly in longmovers, and it botches helpmates occasionally. And as > Mike notes, there are problems in retro-analysis, e.p., sometimes, but > not that often can computers be "fooled" in this manner. > >> >> Now, one could construct a scenario where the computer didn't >> "understand" the complete set-up regarding the right to castle. Or >> one could construct some position which upon analysis would turn out >> be impossible, and analysis would reveal what the last move must have >> been, and THEN we get a mate in two. I'm sure Dr. Dowd could find us >> one of those little gems. >> >> But a real, no-funny-business mate in two that Fritz couldn't solve?? >> No way. >         Date: 26 Nov 2007 17:28:06 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:43:40 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:24:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>On Nov 26, 9:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED >>>> >>>> Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) >>>> >>>> Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United >>>> States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for >>>> those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention >>>> on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely >>>> reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom >>>> Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial >>>> blackmail of unruly players. >>> >>> Now that is an interesting angle to the drug-testing issue, that had >>>never occurred to me. Is Evans saying that FIDE might fake a positive >>>drug test with a GM it did not like? Is there any indication this has >>>been done already? Just asking, not arguing. >> >> Has anybody been disqualified for failing a drug test? I thought it >> was most a bullying tactic. > >two persons What were they taking? (I might want to try it) >> BTW, Kelleher's report seems a wee bit spineless: > >Bill Kelleher is as you say, not living nor dead - despite the rift between >USCF and Fide - and USCF's own motion to fight drug testing, here you have >the anodyne reporting of someone, as if he did not represent USA > >> "In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations, >> FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008. This >> decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately >> the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5 >> top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be >> tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I >> think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to >> be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in >> the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested.". >> >> But "fortunately", since FIDE is "sensitive" we "hopefully" will have >> no problem. Heh, heh, heh. > >Fide is fucking terrified that if they push this issue, USA will baulk at >further affiliation with them. In England it is a more exacerbated situation >still, in the matter of Nigel Short, who the ECF back completely. > >If the English formally depart, then maybe America will remember they too >have balls and do the same - what will follow is secession of all the >Western democracies. > >Phil Innes > Nice to find we can agree on something, Phil.           Date: 29 Nov 2007 05:52:15 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS Once again, we simply reprint the entire posting from Greg Kennedy. Notice how he goes on and on and on about grandmasters, whom he evidently hates. Their crime is that they were far better than he is or will ever be. . Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Nov 28, 11:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OH, DEM MEDIOCRE GRANDMASTERS > > Methinks she doth protest too much. > > Forsooth, the minions of LE spy "attacks" everywhere -- > even where they ain't. > > > GM Evans has long been retired from active play, and > besides that, his own games are relatively few and hard > to find. However, the pages of Chess Lies are filled > with games by other GMs, termed mediocre on account > of their revealing serious errors, upon inspection by Fritz. > > The harsh fact is that today, a few top programs have > established a moat, a sizable gap betwixt themselves > and the average or mediocre human grandmaster. In fact, > even some GMs who are wont to be boastful of their own > imagined achievements will, as a matter of routine, now > resort to the use of Fritz (or Rybka, or Zap) in their > published annotations (Susan Polgar, for instance). > > Not having any chess board which will fit on the > counter top where my laptop computer sits, I find it > handy to play over these annotated games in Chess > Lies magazine on my computer. One big advantage is > that, when the article says a line is no good, I can > quickly verify this (or refute it) by activating Fritz. But > more often, it is errors of omission that are uncovered, > grotesque misstatements along strategical lines which > Fritz has no difficulty in objectively debunking. > > Truth be told, I have no games of Larry Evans to > examine with Fritz; the five-time U.S. champ is > nearly unique in having almost no published games, > only diagrammed positions to look over, such as his > amazing escape versus Sammy Reshevsky in a > position "nine out of ten grandmasters would have > resigned immediately". (All I know is his results > were stellar, but unfortunately he was overshadowed > by the untimely appearance of Bobby Fischer, right > in his own back yard.) > > Just as when Edward Winter obsesses over a small > spelling error or wrong date carelessly published by > the five-time U.S. champ, Mr. Parr seems to go > berserk at any comment he might somehow be able > to misconstrue as an "attack" on his idol. It's a sad > thing to watch -- the pedant because he is unaware > of his own pettiness, and the paranoid delusional, in > that he thinks he sees scary monsters everywhere. > > ---- > > At the lower levels of play, I have later learned of or > personally witnessed countless acts of cheating in > chess; this is why I see the drug issue as relatively > less important. No one I know of has swallowed a > st pill after learning they are paired against say, > Emory Tate, to equal the odds. Instead, a few > unscrupulous types will more likely try and consult > some "sworn enemy" of the tournament favorite, > which is something of a hit-or-miss affair. The most > likely outcome is a very difficult struggle, in which > ET emerges victorious because the cheater is a > hopeless patzer in a time scramble. LOL > > --- > > Obviously, my qualification of the term grandmaster > was intended to convey the fact that a few world-class > GMs can still hold their own, for instance, as seen in > the famous match where GM Kramnik had outplayed > one of the top programs only to toss his win away, > then allow a mate-in-one. I count that as a fluke, but > the outplaying as indicative of humanity's superior > strategical understanding, flattened by the computer's > superior tactics. > > By comparison, the average or mediocre grandmaster > is now losing routinely at pawn odds, and this may > well be widened to two pawn odds if the programmers > can stop handicapping their contraptions via their own > ineptitude. k my words: it is only a matter of time > before a HAL9000 style machine can give mediocre > GMs a Knight, utilizing an anti-human style of play > which cleverly avoids simplification, except when > sufficiently advantageous to itself. > > A long, long time ago, pundits insisted that programs > would not ever become strong enough to defeat a > human master; that later waffled into "grandmaster", > and it took decades for the process to reach a point > where even that waffle got "cooked". A big part of the > problem was in recognition that even the best players > were only human; that they were far from infallible. > > > -- help bot   Date: 26 Nov 2007 06:56:36 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests OUT OF COMPETITION TESTING EXTENDED FIDE REPORT by Fide Vice President, Bill Kelleher November 20, 2007 Following are the decisions taken at the 78th FIDE Congress Executive Board meeting (Antalya, Turkey, November 11-16.) Anti-Doping: In compliance with new WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) regulations, FIDE will introduce "out of competition" testing in 2008. This decision has the potential to be extremely controversial. Fortunately the testing will be limited to the 80 top-rated men players and the 5 top-rated women. Additionally only 10% of these 85 players will be tested. I do not have the latest rating list in front of me, but I think that no more than 4 or 5 of our players are rated high enough to be tested. FIDE has been sensitive to our concerns about testing in the past so hopefully none of our players will be tested. Excerpt from THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 89) Part of the soft-soap peddled by drug-testing advocates in the United States is that intrusive knocks on the toilet door are meant only for those who will compete in the Olympiad, and that there is no intention on the part of the honorable men of FIDE -- including the widely reputed killer Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and the shadowy Armenian Artyom Tarasov--to abuse any power by engaging in medical and financial blackmail of unruly players. But FIDE's antidoping regulations grant the FIDE Medical Commission the power to test every single player at the U.S. Open, if it so decides. Section of paragraph 1.1 is a blank check. Read it: "The procedures which follow are those applicable to FIDE Competitions," 1.1 begins. But, "In other [unspecified, undefined] competitions, as well as in out-of-competition testing [a knock on your door at home], if the FIDE Medical Commission shall determine that out-of competition testing shall be introduced, the same procedures [more about the procedures in a moment] shall apply." Moreover, the Commission need not provide any reason for demanding testing at, say, the U. S. Open. "The FIDE Medical Commission," states 1.5, "shall have the right to request, without justifying the reason therefore, that any competitor undergo a doping control at any time during the relevant competition." Further, "without justifying the reason," the Commission may require blood and urine tests "on more than one occasion during the competition (1.6)." An unfavored grandmaster may be tested at ruinous expense on multiple occasions, including having blood drawn repeatedly during a tournament if the Commission, "without justifying the reason therefore," so decides. [email protected] wrote: > A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM > > >Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. Especially in view of the fact that the hope of > official Olympic recognition seems to have collapsed.> -- Larry > Tapper > > Exercise can likely enhance chess performance. > A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for > mental activity will likely help you more than three > stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else. > Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess > doctor ordered for round one or two. > > Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out. > Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties > will get the body motions in the right cycle for > better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were > the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate > tapwater for everyone so that the African natives > among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich > Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe? > > In the entire history of chess not a single > complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone > win a game of chess. There is no problem. > > Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of > drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of > Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur > Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to > hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent. > > One recollects the initial rules for drug > testing which permitted effective political banning of > players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in > which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of > the worst excesses (including the possibility of > unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually > everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more > accurately, thrust into the background. > > Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon > the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons. > But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so. > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > Larry Tapper wrote: > > On Nov 6, 3:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page > > > > > > 80). > > > > > > Not Keene On Testing > > > > > > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > > > single game of chess... > > > > I wonder whether Larry Evans has asked his friend Lev Alburt for his > > opinion on this matter. > > > > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was > > halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he > > insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to > > Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant > > strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would > > eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. > > > > It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same > > category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control, > > widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not > > seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance > > chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a > > small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night? > > > > Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. > > Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me > > pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. > > Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic > > recognition seems to have collapsed. > > > > Larry T.   Date: 22 Nov 2007 18:40:07 From: Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 10:05 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM > > >Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. Especially in view of the fact that the hope of > > official Olympic recognition seems to have collapsed.> -- Larry > Tapper > > Exercise can likely enhance chess performance. > A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for > mental activity will likely help you more than three > stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else. > Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess > doctor ordered for round one or two. > > Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out. > Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties > will get the body motions in the right cycle for > better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were > the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate > tapwater for everyone so that the African natives > among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich > Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe? > > In the entire history of chess not a single > complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone > win a game of chess. There is no problem. > > Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of > drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of > Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur > Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to > hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent. > > One recollects the initial rules for drug > testing which permitted effective political banning of > players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in > which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of > the worst excesses (including the possibility of > unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually > everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more > accurately, thrust into the background. > > Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon > the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons. > But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so. > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > Larry Tapper wrote: > > On Nov 6, 3:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page > > > > 80). > > > > Not Keene On Testing > > > > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > > > single game of chess... > > > I wonder whether Larry Evans has asked his friend Lev Alburt for his > > opinion on this matter. > > > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was > > halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he > > insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to > > Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant > > strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would > > eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. > > > It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same > > category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control, > > widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not > > seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance > > chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a > > small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night? > > > Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. > > Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me > > pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. > > Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic > > recognition seems to have collapsed. > > > Larry T.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > One recollects the initial rules for drug > testing which permitted effective political banning of > players and enormous fines. The entire nation of St Kitts and Nevis has been banned for all world chess play, because on of their citizens (me) opposes drug testing. I am threatened with murder, I am harassed, and these threats are due to, in part, my FIDE governments stance on drug testing. I am not allowed to attend FIDE events, even under my U.S. Passport. I am banned from Singaproe, under my St Kitts and Nevis passport, as a citizen of the British Commonwealth. Who wants to hear the gripes of a multimillionare? Who would beleive this? I find it hard to beleive, and it has happened to me. cus Roberts   Date: 08 Nov 2007 02:55:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 8, 3:44 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985? > > AVERBAKH: For me it's completely clear. Because Karpov couldn't > continue at all. > > EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion? Objection! Your honor, Prosecution is *leading the witness*. If we want to know what Larry Evans thinks, we should have him trade places and take the stand himself. Mr. Parr can act as prosecutor, and Mr. Averbakh can write more of his excellent chess books instead of undergoing this freaky torture. > AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried > his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply > couldn't play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement. ...which he never got. This fiasco was just another example of FIDE screwing up the world championship cycle in its inimitable style. The adoption of a match format which made no provision whatever for the possibility of endless draws reveals the shallowness of thinking which prevails in chess politics. While the Evans ratpack will rehash two or three opinions which meld with their own inherent biases, it should be noted that many other players felt that in spite of everything, the odds remained in GM Karpov's favor, since both players were on the ropes and AK needed to land but a single blow before crashing to the ground himself from exhaustion. It often happens that ratpacker Larry Parr will not discuss an issue, for fear of inconvenient truths surfacing. Instead, as we see above, he prefers to focus on what someone /thinks/ may have been the case. But does it really matter what YA /thinks/ may have stopped the match, or do we want to know what /really/ stopped the match? If the latter, then the focus should be upon facts. One such fact is that the organizers had contacted the FIDE President, pleading for him to stop the match, not on AK's behalf, but because it was costing /them/ as the two players kept drawing games. Of course, this also was an embarrassment to FIDE, revealing gross incompetence in planning the match. Consider these possibilities: 1) AK enters hospital, GK wins by default (boo!) 2) GK is gaining fast, but loses the match on a single blunder; blames loss on flawed match format 3) AK drops dead; GK is the new uncontested champion but regarded as somewhat weaker than his deceased predecessor 4) AK survives to lose, then enters hospital; blames loss on match format flaw 5) FC intervenes; stops match, declaring AK winner (boo!) 6) FC intervenes; stops match, declaring a new one be played in its stead (gawd -- not another one!) 7) FC intervenes; stops match, declares GK winner because he "looked to be gaining" at the finish (FC is fired, later becomes checkers champion of Philippines, and pens book titled: How I Destroyed World Chess) -- help bot   Date: 08 Nov 2007 00:44:42 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 139 GM Evans Interviews GM Yuri Averbakh EVANS: Why do you think the first K-K match was stopped in 1985? AVERBAKH: For me it's completely clear. Because Karpov couldn't continue at all. EVANS: Was he suffering from nervous exhaustion? AVERBAKH: The chief of his delegation Baturinsky told me that he tried his best to convince Karpov to play on, but that Karpov simply couldn't play despite his two-game lead. He needed a postponement. [email protected] wrote: > ALBURT WENT OUT ON A LIMB IN CHESS LIFE > > >In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov > match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard > Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that > Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story > here, according to Alburt, was that making a long > series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's > part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse > from partially drug-induced exhaustion.> -- Larry Tapper > > Lev Alburt's observations about Karpov being > whizzed out on drugs were NOT written AFTER the > event. They were expounded BEFOREHAND. > > Alburt was actually predicting a Kasparov > victory when the score stood 5-0 in Karpov's > favor, directly following game 27, which was in some > ways Kasparov's low point. > > I published his article in Chess Life believing his > reasoning was basically sound, but there are always > chance blunders. After all, Karpov needed ONLY ONE > more win (six) to clinch the title. > > Lev went out on a long limb and wrote the unthinkable > BEFORE it happened. Later on, some of the pro-Sovietish > readers (yes, remember the politics of that time) were > actually angry that Alburt was proved correct. > Campomanes then stopped the match. > > Karpov lost 22 pounds, and Campo gave as his > official excuse that both players were at the end of > their rope, though such was evidently not the case for > Kasparov'. If Karpov took drugs, there is no evidence > that they aided him. Quite the opposite. > > Once again, Alburt was stating that Karpov was > the player in trouble -- not Kasparov! -- when the score > stood against the latter by 0-5 with 22 draws. > > Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 08 Nov 2007 00:23:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 8, 2:04 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov > > match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard > > Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that > > Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story > > here, according to Alburt, was that making a long > > series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's > > part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse > > from partially drug-induced exhaustion.> -- Larry Tapper > > Lev Alburt's observations about Karpov being > whizzed out on drugs were NOT written AFTER the > event. They were expounded BEFOREHAND. The report at top insists by its use of the words "had been" that this was an observation, not a prediction. As he was talking about a lecture, the above comments miss the point; LP talks about what was /written/, while at top we read about something that was /said/. Two different things. An interesting question is did LA see the drug affects with his own eyes, or was this a long-distance observation? What drugs might GK's doctors have provided /him/? Another interesting question is: how could Larry Evans have so easily "forgotten" about this when he wrote that nobody had ever had any problem with drug-use in chess? (Senility is the obvious answer, but maybe I am giving him far too much credit.) > Alburt was actually predicting a Kasparov > victory when the score stood 5-0 in Karpov's > favor, directly following game 27, which was in some > ways Kasparov's low point. LP ought to explain in what ways he means. Making it to game 27 in itself was rekable. >From the perspective of his prior matches, a low point would be his first loss, and then his second, etc. From a later perspective, achieving a draw could be seen as a high point; but the tip-top had to be when Mr. Campomanes threw out AK's decisive lead, declaring the match over, a mere draw. This meant that GK had never lost a world championship match, which put him one-up on many of the former world champs. Later on, GK would moan and groan about being "cheated" of an age record by that action, but in truth such a victory -- were he lucky -- would have been widely seen as tainted. I don't know about you, but I would rather surrender a possible age record (which never stands long, as history shows) in favor of a title which earns the respect and admiration of everyone for having been well-earned. > I published his article in Chess Life Along with other articles, which took different positions. Does LP really think he can claim foresight by pretending this was the only article he published? Wow. I think a little research will show that most of the articles LP published predicted an AK victory, so we can infer that this was no endorsement by the editor. > believing his reasoning was basically sound, but there are always > chance blunders. After all, Karpov needed ONLY ONE > more win (six) to clinch the title. > > Lev went out on a long limb and wrote the unthinkable > BEFORE it happened. I think LP is shortchanging Gary Kasparov here; it is hardly "unthinkable" that he might begin to win some games, instead of just drawing. The momentum AK had at the beginning was already gone. The quality of play was declining due to fatigue. > Later on, some of the pro-Sovietish > readers (yes, remember the politics of that time) were > actually angry that Alburt was proved correct. He was? Gary Kasparov won the first match? There were no later K vs. K matches, because GM Kasparov faced GM Timman or GM Ivanchuk for the next ten years? I didn't know that. (I won't bother to ask who won, since it is self-evident.) > Campomanes then stopped the match. > > Karpov lost 22 pounds, and Campo gave as his > official excuse that both players were at the end of > their rope, though such was evidently not the case for > Kasparov'. If Karpov took drugs, there is no evidence > that they aided him. Quite the opposite. Nonsense. If GM Karpov was taking the right kinds and doses of drugs, this explains why GK had so much trouble with /him/, when he had little trouble with all the other top players. The match format can be blamed for any failure due to long-term use burnout. By the way, if LP's number above is correct, I must say that 22 pounds is not a huge amount unless AK was already slimmed down at the start of the match. Gary Kasparov reportedly also lost weight, but of course this fact was deliberately omitted by Mr. Parr in his usual fashion. > Once again, Alburt was stating that Karpov was > the player in trouble -- not Kasparov! -- when the score > stood against the latter by 0-5 with 22 draws. According to the statement by Larry Tapper at top, GM Alburt was *wrong*; GM Karpov did not collapse. What's more, it required a bit of rescuing by the FIDE president to magically transform GK's negative score into a drawn match -- something nobody had even considered possible. -- help bot   Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:39:00 From: Subject: speed makes you lose weight! Dear Larry, Then Lev Albert must be speaking from personal experience, not his experience as a GM. Most drugs wear off rather quickly. For this to go on as Abrupt predicted, it would have to been something like speed or meth. US air force fighter pilots use speed or amphetamine for proven use in performance enhancing situations where they must stay awake for 48-72 hours. Speed helps people remain alert longer than normal, and that is a proven benefit, Except that Chess does not require 72 hour matches. The games are now played quite Quickly. So, in an all night chess match, speed does help. Where games are resticted to 8 or 12 hours per day, no benefit exists from any drug known to man at this time. I am amazed, because at the time, there was no internet, no e-mail to gather gossip. Sincerely cus Roberts   Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:04:36 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests ALBURT WENT OUT ON A LIMB IN CHESS LIFE >In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. > -- Larry Tapper Lev Alburt's observations about Karpov being whizzed out on drugs were NOT written AFTER the event. They were expounded BEFOREHAND. Alburt was actually predicting a Kasparov victory when the score stood 5-0 in Karpov's favor, directly following game 27, which was in some ways Kasparov's low point. I published his article in Chess Life believing his reasoning was basically sound, but there are always chance blunders. After all, Karpov needed ONLY ONE more win (six) to clinch the title. Lev went out on a long limb and wrote the unthinkable BEFORE it happened. Later on, some of the pro-Sovietish readers (yes, remember the politics of that time) were actually angry that Alburt was proved correct. Campomanes then stopped the match. Karpov lost 22 pounds, and Campo gave as his official excuse that both players were at the end of their rope, though such was evidently not the case for Kasparov'. If Karpov took drugs, there is no evidence that they aided him. Quite the opposite. Once again, Alburt was stating that Karpov was the player in trouble -- not Kasparov! -- when the score stood against the latter by 0-5 with 22 draws. Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:58:44 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 11:05 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > Exercise can likely enhance chess performance. An understatement. > A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for > mental activity will likely help you more than three > stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else. > Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess > doctor ordered for round one or two. When I ran competitively, coaches would advise runners to eat spaghetti the night before an event. In a typical 2-day 5-round Swiss, the stronger players can expect their easiest games in rounds one and two, so a good breakfast is probably helpful. > Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out. No. Cigarettes contain nicotine -- a vasoconstrictor. It may calm the jitters, but in the end, such drugs as nicotine are counterproductive. > Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties > will get the body motions in the right cycle for > better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were > the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate > tapwater for everyone so that the African natives > among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich > Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe? Gone fishing again? Where do you find all these herrings -- the North Atlantic? > In the entire history of chess not a single > complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone > win a game of chess. Name your source. (We could all assume it must be God; who else knows /everything/ that's ever happened?) > There is no problem. Much has been written about this. Complaints seem to surface whenever an outcome is not to the whiners' liking, such as when a certain world champion was not defeated by GMs Kortchnoi or Kasparov. I see the problem as too much whining, but others could interpret it as an unfair edge for drug-laced yogurt eaters -- even if now the whining about it has stopped for a moment in favor of the "no problem" mantra. > Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of > drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of > Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur > Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to > hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent. If that were true, then a simple solution would be to exempt all GMs from testing. LOL Just let everyone know that GMs can have all the drugs they want, so they are on equal terms with one another. The rest of us will be held to a higher standard, because FIDE has no need to control critics who do not possess the GM title. Weaker players can talk their heads off, and it won't bother FIDE one bit. Of course, in games between GMs and non-GMs, odds will become necessary in order to level the field a bit; IMs get a pawn; FMs, two pawns, and the rest of us, a Knight. I like it! > One recollects the initial rules for drug > testing which permitted effective political banning of > players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in > which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of > the worst excesses (including the possibility of > unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually > everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more > accurately, thrust into the background. It sounds like what you need is real clout. It reminds me a bit of Sam Sloan and his one-vote efforts within the USCF. > Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon > the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons. > But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so. Ad hominem. The concept of drug-testing stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of what position the evil minions at FIDE take. Even the fact that the evil Evans ratpack is strongly against it, is no valid reason to be in favor. In fact, these evils seem to essentially cancel one another out. -- help bot   Date: 07 Nov 2007 22:22:56 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 1:35 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > SBD wrote: > > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of > > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased > > testosterone levels. > > Pardon me for injecting a curious hypothetical tangent. What if one of > our 2700+ males decided to cross the gender gap. After getting the > appropriate medical counseling, treatments and surgery he became > recognized by everyday folks as a woman. How much "maleness" would > remain? Would there still be elevated testosterone levels relative to > biological females? > > Suppose this person then decided to train, and attempt to qualify for > the women's world championship. Are there FIDE regulations governing > any of this? If we are going to have drug testing, do we also need > gender testing? I expect this would be a very unwise move: Judit Polgar would trash any male player on equal terms, were his inherent competitive advantages to suddenly disappear. Don't forget that even with his hairy testosterone-laden body, Gary Kasparov felt a need to cheat in order to defeat that girl. -- help bot   Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:21:27 From: Vance Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Ray, neither drug would give a player 'quite an edge.' Another example of you not knowing what you are talking about. If you would care to dispute this statement, feel free. You know the results. Vance On Nov 6, 3:52 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled > >anyone to win a single game of chess. > > Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. > > -- > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy > > Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 > > This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the > creator of the PIVOT! > > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which > have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really > is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who > stole their ideas from others! > > http://moderncaveman.typepad.com > The Official Ray Gordon Blog   Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:05:07 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests A SOLUTION WITHOUT A PROBLEM >Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic recognition seems to have collapsed. > -- Larry Tapper Exercise can likely enhance chess performance. A good breakfast which is calibrated correctly for mental activity will likely help you more than three stacks of pancakes, maple syrup and whatever else. Or perhaps this breakfast is just what the chess doctor ordered for round one or two. Perhaps cigarettes or caffeine help out. Perhaps Evian water with its therapeutic properties will get the body motions in the right cycle for better chess than sans Evian. And if the latter were the case, do we ban expensive Evian and mandate tapwater for everyone so that the African natives among us are not disadvantaged when facing a rich Frenchie from the Alpine regions of Europe? In the entire history of chess not a single complaint has been made that a drug helped anyone win a game of chess. There is no problem. Yet there is the bureaucratic "solution" of drug-testing, though to be sure, its raison d'etre of Olympic admission is a dead letter. As GM Artur Yusupov and others have noted, its real purpose is to hold GMs ultimately at risk if they dissent. One recollects the initial rules for drug testing which permitted effective political banning of players and enormous fines. After a brouhaha, in which GM Evans and this writer participated, many of the worst excesses (including the possibility of unlimited doctor's bills for tests involving virtually everything under the sun) were eliminated or, more accurately, thrust into the background. Right now, drug-testing is a political weapon the FIDE authorities want to wield for political reasons. But they remain fearful -- thank heaven! -- to do so. Yours, Larry Parr Larry Tapper wrote: > On Nov 6, 3:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page > > > > 80). > > > > Not Keene On Testing > > > > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > > single game of chess... > > I wonder whether Larry Evans has asked his friend Lev Alburt for his > opinion on this matter. > > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was > halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he > insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to > Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant > strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would > eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. > > It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same > category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control, > widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not > seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance > chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a > small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night? > > Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. > Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me > pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. > Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic > recognition seems to have collapsed. > > Larry T.   Date: 07 Nov 2007 11:44:08 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 10:51 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased > testosterone levels. The way that is phrased, it's not clear whether testosterone contributes to victory, or winning simply increases one's testosterone level. Could it not be that the elation of victory increases it, while the depression of defeat lowers it? Also, did the study control for age?     Date: 07 Nov 2007 12:00:55 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Taylor Kingston wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: >> There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of >> testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased >> testosterone levels. > > The way that is phrased, it's not clear whether testosterone > contributes to victory, or winning simply increases one's testosterone > level. Could it not be that the elation of victory increases it, while > the depression of defeat lowers it? Also, did the study control for > age? > From the study as just posted: "Also, in certain circumstances, competitors show rises in T before their games, as if in preparation for the contests." If FIDE regulators catch wind of this and start to imagine scenarios where unscrupulous chess coaches begin injecting testosterone into young female players to give them a performance boost before the upcoming elementary school championship they will probably get pretty excited about it. If my dim memory of human biology serves, extra testosterone is not a good thing for females in general, unless it is part of a medical therapy under the supervision of a doctor. So does this then lead to considerations similar to those about steroids? If testosterone is recognized as a problem, it opens up a new controversy regarding all the different medical treatments involving hormone supplements. How are you going to test this fairly? If someone needs a particular supplement (or drug for that matter) to stay alive, barring them from playing because they test positive for using it is similar to barring the handicapped from playing... Once you get to that point, be prepared for more lawsuits. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti   Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:02:20 From: SBD Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests Here you go bot. TI: TESTOSTERONE AND CHESS COMPETITION AU: MAZUR_A, BOOTH_A, DABBS_JM NA: SYRACUSE UNIV,MAXWELL SCH,SYRACUSE,NY,13244 PENN STATE UNIV,SOCIOL,UNIV PK,PA,16802 GEORGIA STATE UNIV,PSYCHOL,ATLANTA,GA,30303 JN: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY 1992 Vol.55 No.1 pp.70-77 AB: The hormone testosterone (T) has a central role in recent theories about allocation of status ranks during face-to- face competition. It has been methodologically convenient to test the hypothesized T mechanism in physically taxing athletic contests, where results have been supportive, although their generalizability to normal social competition is questionable. Competition among chess players is a step closer to normal social competition because it does not require physical struggle, and it is the arena for tests of the T mechanism which are reported here. We find that winners of chess tournaments show higher T levels than do losers. Also, in certain circumstances, competitors show rises in T before their games, as if in preparation for the contests. These results generally support recent theories about the role of T in the allocation of status ranks. KP: HUMAN MALES, AGGRESSIVE-BEHAVIOR, SALIVARY TESTOSTERONE, PLASMA TESTOSTERONE, SERUM TESTOSTERONE, RESPONSES, CORTISOL   Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:55:38 From: SBD Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: It's not a bad hypothetical question, Rev. Stella Walsh in chess? :)   Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:54:37 From: SBD Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 12:09 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:51 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of > > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased > > testosterone levels. > > Can you tell us more about that study? I'll look. It's been several years since I looked at it, so I would be hesitant to provide any more details until then. I do know that an abstract was posted at Dr. Dave's site some years back.   Date: 07 Nov 2007 10:09:17 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 10:51 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased > testosterone levels. Can you tell us more about that study? For instance, if they went to the Galactic Open and waited 'till it was over, then tested and found that the winners had higher levels, it could just mean that young players tend to do better than older ones under the grueling conditions on s/or a B. Goichberg event. If what you meant was that winners tended to have higher levels than losers, it could indicate that the "will to win" is closely related to testosterone levels, which again are related to age and sex. > It seems to me that the disingenuous ploy to mandate drug testing has > only been met by the equally disingenuous "no one has shown that drugs > can enhance chess performance!" Worse than that, if you read it carefully: GM Evans did not phrase it just so that the burden of proof was (still) on the researchers; to the contrary, he phrased it as a flat denial of reality. (Some people think the five-time U.S. champ now lives in Reno, but the fact is, he's somewhere out in La-la land.) I have seen quite a few studies conducted by the U.S. military referenced online, but one site wanted money just to look at them, unless you had a login ID. Typically, comments regarding this sort of thing are reserved for the enemy, though it is widely known that we too utilize such methods, and have for a long time. > I would bet that there are substances > that can enhance chess performance , which will be shown as sure as it > is important (no Olympics, no money in chess, no one cares). > > There is also the "nervous grandma" view that cannabis, and so on must > also be tested for to show "purity" in the game. Wasn't one of "Dr." > Press' arguments that drug testing was "for the children"? Drivel on > one side, drivel on the other, just a bunch of spoiled children > arguing over a ball. As of yet, I have not run into any players whose use of drugs was an issue. But there is no denying that some of the descriptions I have heard of the experiences of others lean toward use of amphetamines or perhaps even cocaine in chess tournaments by a relative few. This issue is tough to separate from the idea of bashing of FIDE, which is hard to sever from getting chess into the Olympics; apparently, the Evans ratpack are vehemently against all three, so they mix and match here on a whim. But in spite of claims which seem to always be self-contradictory, in the end LP will admit somewhere -- even if by accident -- that behind it all is the free money that comes with Olympic participation. -- help bot   Date: 07 Nov 2007 09:39:56 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 10:36 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote: > In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was > halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he > insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of > performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to > Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant > strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would > eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. Too bad he couldn't have expounded on this, um, "strategy" beforehand. It's all too easy to come up with such speculations after the fact, fitting the actual outcome to some random theory, created on a whim. Of course one titanic hole is that this implies total control of game outcomes by just one player. It also seems to imply that GKs wins were flukes, and his losses, *failures* in his execution of this supposed "strategy". Another small difficulty lies in the imbecilic assumption of GK not being able to win the match outright via superior play -- which is just plain silly, and a slap in the face to Gary Kasparov's chess skill. My view is that given his stellar performances just prior to the K vs. K match, GK and his team may well have expected another victory, just not quite so one-sided in terms of score. The idea that this imagined "strategy" could even come into play requires a foreknowledge of the very extraordinary events, including but not limited to: a) GM Karpov unexpectedly taking a huge lead at the very start b) GM Kasparov grabbing the cliff's edge with his fingertips c) GM Karpov being unable to pry a finger or two loose, in spite of numerous opportunities d) Knowledge in advance that if the match were stopped, the actual score would just be thrown out and a continuance rejected (Wow) e) Belief that even after AK had "inevitably" lost fifty pounds and was a mere skeleton, GK could STILL not take the match!!! These add up to an asinine insult of GK's playing skill. Do not forget who we are talking about here -- the first human player in history to break 2800. > It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same > category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control, > widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not > seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance > chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a > small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night? Yes, it would. But the problem is that uppers, just like caffeine or other drugs, have a "payback" phase. As GM Fischer might put it: to get blank, you have to give blank. > Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. > Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me > pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. > Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic > recognition seems to have collapsed. The general drift of /Larry Evans'/ argument seems to have been: deliberately ignore the facts; swing wide to avoid any mention of drugs like amphetamines or actual research into the effects of such drugs; deny reality; attack FIDE. Obviously, this does not imply that no reasoned argument could be made by a more rational person. For instance, a few of the drugs mentioned have no positive effect on chess performance, but quite the opposite; testing for them makes no sense, even *if* the idea of drug-testing were universally approved, which it isn't. -- help bot   Date: 07 Nov 2007 15:51:51 From: SBD Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased testosterone levels. It seems to me that the disingenuous ploy to mandate drug testing has only been met by the equally disingenuous "no one has shown that drugs can enhance chess performance!" I would bet that there are substances that can enhance chess performance , which will be shown as sure as it is important (no Olympics, no money in chess, no one cares). There is also the "nervous grandma" view that cannabis, and so on must also be tested for to show "purity" in the game. Wasn't one of "Dr." Press' arguments that drug testing was "for the children"? Drivel on one side, drivel on the other, just a bunch of spoiled children arguing over a ball.     Date: 07 Nov 2007 10:35:03 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests SBD wrote: > There has been at least one study that showed that increased levels of > testosterone were beneficial - chessplayers who won more had increased > testosterone levels. > Pardon me for injecting a curious hypothetical tangent. What if one of our 2700+ males decided to cross the gender gap. After getting the appropriate medical counseling, treatments and surgery he became recognized by everyday folks as a woman. How much "maleness" would remain? Would there still be elevated testosterone levels relative to biological females? Suppose this person then decided to train, and attempt to qualify for the women's world championship. Are there FIDE regulations governing any of this? If we are going to have drug testing, do we also need gender testing? -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti   Date: 07 Nov 2007 07:36:31 From: Larry Tapper Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 3:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page > > 80). > > Not Keene On Testing > > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > single game of chess... I wonder whether Larry Evans has asked his friend Lev Alburt for his opinion on this matter. In 1985, shortly after the endless Karpov-Kasparov match which was halted by Campomanes, I heard Alburt give a public lecture in which he insisted that Karpov had been hopped up on a special cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs. The real back story here, according to Alburt, was that making a long series of draws was a brilliant strategy on Kasparov's part, on the theory that Karpov would eventually collapse from partially drug-induced exhaustion. It is of course possible to put Alburt's conjecture in the same category as Russian rumors about parapsychology and mind control, widely believed but not substantiated scientifically. But it does not seem implausible to me generally that certain drugs could enhance chess performance, at least on an occasional ad hoc basis. Wouldn't a small dose of amphetamines help after a sleepless night? Even so, I agree with the general drift of the anti-testing argument. Even if there are drugs that enhance chess performance, it seems to me pointless and intrusive for FIDE to insist on mandatory testing. Especially in view of the fact that the hope of official Olympic recognition seems to have collapsed. Larry T.   Date: 07 Nov 2007 07:34:56 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 7, 7:19 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials > >> >> instead of on durg testing? > > >> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. > > >> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting > >> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend > >> money on chess events > > > Nice, um, dodge. > > > Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse > > Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but its > also /tilt/ and game over. > > What I answered is that those who care will pay. Nice switcharoo. You duck, then dodge, then proclaim that you "already answered" the direct question. This rings familiar, now that I think about it. Many others have complained before about precisely the same sort of behavior from nearly-an-IM before. > If you start your posts with such personal diffidence, Idiot, heal thyself! There is nobody in rgc who is more guilty of your complaint than the ratpackers themselves, so this comes off as *titanic hypocrisy*. If you are truly against "personal diffidence", then by golly show it with your actions, not words. > I do not wish to continue the subject with > you - because I have no wish nor need to compel you to my opinion, and also > because you cannot state your own. My opinion is merely that your interest in this subject is a pretense; it always comes up when you find yourself under attack by a multitude for not writing about chess issues, right after you have just attacked others for the same offense. In sum, it is a self-defense mechanism, not a true interest on your part. The subject fades into darkness until the next volley finds you in a spot of trouble, needing a convenient tool. -- help bot     Date: 07 Nov 2007 18:25:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 7, 7:19 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials >> >> >> instead of on durg testing? >> >> >> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. >> >> >> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting >> >> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually >> >> spend >> >> money on chess events >> >> > Nice, um, dodge. >> >> > Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse >> >> Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but >> its >> also /tilt/ and game over. >> >> What I answered is that those who care will pay. > > Nice switcharoo. You duck, then dodge, then > proclaim that you "already answered" the direct > question. I'm sorry. If you don't care enough to play, its game over. Its not any dodge since I answered twice - even the same way. Whatever else occurs to you is not therefore any concern of mine with this subject. Phil Innes > This rings familiar, now that I think about it. Many > others have complained before about precisely the > same sort of behavior from nearly-an-IM before. > > >> If you start your posts with such personal diffidence, > > Idiot, heal thyself! There is nobody in rgc who is more > guilty of your complaint than the ratpackers themselves, > so this comes off as *titanic hypocrisy*. > > If you are truly against "personal diffidence", then by > golly show it with your actions, not words. > > >> I do not wish to continue the subject with >> you - because I have no wish nor need to compel you to my opinion, and >> also >> because you cannot state your own. > > My opinion is merely that your interest in this > subject is a pretense; it always comes up when > you find yourself under attack by a multitude > for not writing about chess issues, right after you > have just attacked others for the same offense. > In sum, it is a self-defense mechanism, not a > true interest on your part. The subject fades > into darkness until the next volley finds you in > a spot of trouble, needing a convenient tool. > > > -- help bot > > > >   Date: 07 Nov 2007 00:35:13 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials > >> instead of on durg testing? > > > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. > > whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting > offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend > money on chess events Nice, um, dodge. Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse to answer where the money you want to spend will come from. How about a deal? If you can't manage the guts to specify *whose* money you are spending, just propose doing nothing, since that doesn't cost any money. You'll at least get the Libertarian vote. > > BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past > > offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/ > > crazies, nor do they detect the st ones, who of > > course have not been caught before. > > yes - this is true, and new opportunities have arisen via the net for > stalking, several examples in chess - yet what screening does is eliminate > those who would cause offense based on their known behavior - and screening > is continuous, so that it [poorly, for sure] balances the need for privacy > in modern life, to likely gross offence to someone else's life When you write "cause offense", it sounds very much like an attack on SS. But many, if not most, of the kids involved in chess fall outside his target area, and by extension, the target areas of others like him. What worries me is that, like a disinfectant that is claimed to eliminate 99% of germs, you are missing the ones which are the most dangerous of all. Even so, this is not a bad idea, but it is /not sufficient/ to get the whole job done. > this subject is particualrly difficult for americans, no? > > > (I am reminded > > of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make > > mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have > > accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage > > to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles > > Manson case, for instance.) > > fucking children is no tv show episode, comrade On second thought, I think offensive types /should/ be rounded up and thrown into the clinker. I am definitely going to vote for this, no matter what the cost. Once these scum are rounded up and disposed of, then we can worry about what to do about the ones who got away. -- help bot     Date: 07 Nov 2007 12:19:58 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials >> >> instead of on durg testing? >> >> > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. >> >> whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting >> offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend >> money on chess events > > Nice, um, dodge. > > Like so many sleazy politicians these days, you refuse Kennedy. I already replied. When I ask you, you duck. That's okay, but its also /tilt/ and game over. What I answered is that those who care will pay. If you start your posts with such personal diffidence, I do not wish to continue the subject with you - because I have no wish nor need to compel you to my opinion, and also because you cannot state your own. Phil Innes > to answer where the money you want to spend will come > from. How about a deal? If you can't manage the guts to > specify *whose* money you are spending, just propose > doing nothing, since that doesn't cost any money. You'll > at least get the Libertarian vote. > > >> > BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past >> > offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/ >> > crazies, nor do they detect the st ones, who of >> > course have not been caught before. >> >> yes - this is true, and new opportunities have arisen via the net for >> stalking, several examples in chess - yet what screening does is >> eliminate >> those who would cause offense based on their known behavior - and >> screening >> is continuous, so that it [poorly, for sure] balances the need for >> privacy >> in modern life, to likely gross offence to someone else's life > > When you write "cause offense", it sounds very much > like an attack on SS. But many, if not most, of the kids > involved in chess fall outside his target area, and by > extension, the target areas of others like him. > > What worries me is that, like a disinfectant that is > claimed to eliminate 99% of germs, you are missing > the ones which are the most dangerous of all. Even > so, this is not a bad idea, but it is /not sufficient/ to > get the whole job done. > > >> this subject is particualrly difficult for americans, no? >> >> > (I am reminded >> > of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make >> > mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have >> > accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage >> > to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles >> > Manson case, for instance.) >> >> fucking children is no tv show episode, comrade > > On second thought, I think offensive types /should/ > be rounded up and thrown into the clinker. I am > definitely going to vote for this, no matter what the cost. > > > Once these scum are rounded up and disposed of, then > we can worry about what to do about the ones who got > away. > > > -- help bot >   Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:33:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 7:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess > > than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in > > tournaments. > > **I can. Advertise actual factors which are offensive in chess. Cheating; I find it very offensive. Thus far, inconsideration -- as in talking and making noise while others are still playing -- has not bothered me much; maybe that's because I am usually winning though. > How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small > prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving > away countless players who would otherwise have > entered tourneys. > > **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials instead > of on durg testing? Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/ crazies, nor do they detect the st ones, who of course have not been caught before. (I am reminded of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles Manson case, for instance.) > **The Rule is that Money follows Power. Please find Power and tell him to meet me at midnight in the alley behind Bugaloo's Sports Bar. I'll be lying in wait for the next guy who walks past after him (don't try to tell me he never carries Cash, Diamonds or Gold). > Fide is an organisation in name, yet > its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy > one-party state. Yeah -- whatever that means. > In other words, it is in a monopoly position without being > in a representative position. Nobody complained when forces inside the USCF managed to manipulate FIDE into accepting BF, although he did not even qualify. But when someone else gets a hand in, the groans never cease. Even today, the FIDE Web site proclaims as Mr. Campomanes' great achievement, the spread of chess to third world countries; but because this came at the expense of things not going "our" way, the moaning about it persists. (It's rather like the behavior of a child who does not get his own way /all the time/.) > **Multi-millionairres do not need to generate money as much as ciruclate > money, as a means to /exhibit/ their power. That is the pathology of your > Plutocrat. Speaking of pathos, the idea that FIDE or its evil minions belong to me, is beyond all reason. > The People's Paradise, > Vermont So we were told in the last presidential election, by Howard Dean. I believe he claimed that everyone in Vermont had perfect health (care), a job, a nice house, nice clothes, a loyal dog, and above-average children. It sounded so good I was going to vote for him and then move there, but something went awry... . -- help bot     Date: 06 Nov 2007 23:35:24 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials >> instead >> of on durg testing? > > Whose money? Certainly not *my* money. whose money is spent on drug tests? will your money be spent averting offense to kids? that seems to be the choice to those who actually spend money on chess events > BTW, such tests may be able to pinpoint many past > offenders, but they are no good when it comes to /new/ > crazies, nor do they detect the st ones, who of > course have not been caught before. yes - this is true, and new opportunities have arisen via the net for stalking, several examples in chess - yet what screening does is eliminate those who would cause offense based on their known behavior - and screening is continuous, so that it [poorly, for sure] balances the need for privacy in modern life, to likely gross offence to someone else's life this subject is particualrly difficult for americans, no? > (I am reminded > of certain detective shows on TV; the criminals make > mistake after mistake, but only after such errors have > accumulated into a sizable mass do the police manage > to stumble across the solution. Consider the Charles > Manson case, for instance.) fucking children is no tv show episode, comrade and tv a very uncertain guide to the mores of our times, sometimes indeed, it seems to celebrate female stalking, especially [you ever notice this?] >> **The Rule is that Money follows Power. > > Please find Power and tell him to meet me at > midnight in the alley behind Bugaloo's Sports Bar. > I'll be lying in wait for the next guy who walks past > after him (don't try to tell me he never carries Cash, > Diamonds or Gold). > > >> Fide is an organisation in name, yet >> its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy >> one-party state. > > Yeah -- whatever that means. Fide is only its president's aura - and if you suppose yourself to address either offenses to kids, or the joys of the one-party state, be so kind as to inform yourself before venturing an opinion, rather than goofy abstractions about things which you lack the balls to look at This subject is not net-chat. It is measured in blood If you have no pain, don't tell me what 'nobody did', since you don't care more than they [didn't] Phil Innes >> In other words, it is in a monopoly position without being >> in a representative position. > > Nobody complained when forces inside the USCF > managed to manipulate FIDE into accepting BF, > although he did not even qualify. But when someone > else gets a hand in, the groans never cease. > > Even today, the FIDE Web site proclaims as Mr. > Campomanes' great achievement, the spread of > chess to third world countries; but because this > came at the expense of things not going "our" way, > the moaning about it persists. (It's rather like the > behavior of a child who does not get his own way > /all the time/.) > > >> **Multi-millionairres do not need to generate money as much as ciruclate >> money, as a means to /exhibit/ their power. That is the pathology of your >> Plutocrat. > > Speaking of pathos, the idea that FIDE or its evil > minions belong to me, is beyond all reason. > > >> The People's Paradise, >> Vermont > > So we were told in the last presidential election, by > Howard Dean. I believe he claimed that everyone in > Vermont had perfect health (care), a job, a nice > house, nice clothes, a loyal dog, and above-average > children. It sounded so good I was going to vote for > him and then move there, but something went awry... . > > > -- help bot > >   Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:07:32 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 6:52 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote: > >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled > >anyone to win a single game of chess. > > Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. I found a very interesting statement at Wikipedia, probably snatched from another article somewhere: "Adderall is a stimulant which taken at the right dose helps with concentration. Research done by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) shows the more competitive the college, the higher the incidence of stimulant use." Think about this for a moment. If college students tend to use such drugs in competitive situations, what do you suppose are the implications for professionals who /compete for a living/? -- help bot No wonder I don't always win easily against grandmasters. ; >D   Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:52:12 From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\ Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled >anyone to win a single game of chess. Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the creator of the PIVOT! Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who stole their ideas from others! http://moderncaveman.typepad.com The Official Ray Gordon Blog     Date: 07 Nov 2007 11:05:12 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled >>anyone to win a single game of chess. > > Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. John Fernandez was probably the biggest promoter of drug testing in the USA. He admitted in these newsgroups he took Ritalin to calm himself down. The issue is always if such things provide an /unfair/ edge. Personally, whether uppers or downers, I would be quite happy to play anyone drugged up to the eyeballs. All that is happening is that the person is seeking their own equilibrium [no pun intended] A wise man once wrote in these newsgroups, 'you know, the brain makes drugs of its own'. And that I think hits the very center of the issues, since a candid assessment of the issue admits the superiority of that fact over any other method, and is an absolutely winning comment. Phil Innes > > -- > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru > http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy > > Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 > > This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the > creator of the PIVOT! > > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods > which have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It > really is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus > who stole their ideas from others! > > http://moderncaveman.typepad.com > The Official Ray Gordon Blog >       Date: 22 Nov 2007 10:16:09 From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\ Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests >> >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled >>>anyone to win a single game of chess. >> >> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. > > John Fernandez was probably the biggest promoter of drug testing in the > USA. He admitted in these newsgroups he took Ritalin to calm himself down. > > The issue is always if such things provide an /unfair/ edge. Personally, > whether uppers or downers, I would be quite happy to play anyone drugged > up to the eyeballs. I envision baseball in the future being run by the drug companies, with the players used as guinea pigs, and their stats used to further drug research. Then everything would be above-board, and the games would serve a useful purpose to society. -- Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which no longer work. Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?         Date: 24 Nov 2007 09:44:14 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests It is very interesting that drug-testing has just arrived in the US in a major sport - Golf. The opinion of the golfing community seems to be the same as the chess one - in fact, an AP journalist put it like this: Test Tiger Woods - if no drugs, then test no further, since if he can do /that/ without drugs... Bingo! Phil Innes "Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>> >Never in history has any illegal substance enabled >>>>anyone to win a single game of chess. >>> >>> Not true: Ritalin and now Adderall XR would give a player quite an edge. >> >> John Fernandez was probably the biggest promoter of drug testing in the >> USA. He admitted in these newsgroups he took Ritalin to calm himself >> down. >> >> The issue is always if such things provide an /unfair/ edge. Personally, >> whether uppers or downers, I would be quite happy to play anyone drugged >> up to the eyeballs. > > I envision baseball in the future being run by the drug companies, with > the players used as guinea pigs, and their stats used to further drug > research. > > Then everything would be above-board, and the games would serve a useful > purpose to society. > > > -- > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru > http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy > > Ray's new "Project 5000" is here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000 > > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods > which no longer work. > > Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS: > http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187 > > Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight > contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid > targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and > ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about? > > >   Date: 06 Nov 2007 01:09:56 From: help bot Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests [email protected] wrote: > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > single game of chess. Wow. It appears that Larry Evans has developed a God complex. He now believes he "knows" everything under the sun, including events (or nonevents) before he was even born. This is not looking good. > Yet FIDE is now pushing for universal drug > testing on the pretext of getting chess into the Olympics, thus making > it eligible for government funding in many nations. > > The Spanish Chess Federation, for example, receives about $320,000 a > year from the Council of Sports for testing 20 players at random. More > than 100 substances are banned, including excess levels of alcohol, > cannabis, and coffee. Many of the players I have known would strenuously object to testing for cannabis, but testing for this or for alcohol makes no sense, as those are not mental performance-enhancement drugs at all -- just the opposite. I would note that LE deliberately chose these three examples, while craftily avoiding any mention of substances like cocaine, for instance; think about why he would do that. > Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess > than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in > tournaments. How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving away countless players who would otherwise have entered tourneys. As for the USCF, they appear to have recently allowed chess ratings to drift lower over time, and this does not exactly engender greater tournament participation. Try to imagine that (almost) everyone is getting weaker at chess: what effect would this have on participation? Even those who study cannot seem to "improve" much, judging by what I have seen lately. Many players are sitting on a rating floor, watching the tide roll away -- as in a famous song. > Ray Keene, Britain's leading chess authority, argues that the real > agenda is to control the careers of players. Some excerpts from his > article in the Spectator: > > =B7 Performance enhancing drugs-steroids of the mind as it were-are not > and never have been a problem in chess. This statement seems to have been transmuted -- and grotesquely distorted -- by Larry Evans, above. > =B7 Although chess bureaucrats are enthusiastic about these new > regulations, players as a whole are neither ready nor willing to > submit to wholesale drug testing. > > =B7 FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over > players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out > any real abuse in chess. False dichotomy. Already a third possibility was presented: that of trying to get easy money out of the Olympics. In view of FIDE's long history of greed over principle, there is simply no need to postulate any other motive here; it is redundant, and appears here unsupported by facts. Much of what Ray Keene said makes sense, but neither he nor Larry Parr-Evans has given any substance here to back the accusation of FIDE attempting to do anything other than get chess into the Olympics /for the money/. -- help bot     Date: 06 Nov 2007 12:50:51 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... [email protected] wrote: > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > single game of chess. <... > > Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess > than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in > tournaments. **I can. Advertise actual factors which are offensive in chess. How about high entry fees, in conjunction with small prizes? That works /very well/ in my area, driving away countless players who would otherwise have entered tourneys. **How about spending money on background checks for chess officials instead of on durg testing? <.... > > � FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over > players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out > any real abuse in chess. False dichotomy. Already a third possibility was presented: that of trying to get easy money out of the Olympics. In view of FIDE's long history of greed over principle, there is simply no need to postulate any other motive here; it is redundant, and appears here unsupported by facts. **The Rule is that Money follows Power. Fide is an organisation in name, yet its orientation to chess as is its president to its own 100% democracy one-party state. In other words, it is in a monopoly position without being in a representative position. Much of what Ray Keene said makes sense, but neither he nor Larry Parr-Evans has given any substance here to back the accusation of FIDE attempting to do anything other than get chess into the Olympics /for the money/. **Multi-millionairres do not need to generate money as much as ciruclate money, as a means to /exhibit/ their power. That is the pathology of your Plutocrat. Phil Innes The People's Paradise, Vermont -- help bot   Date: 06 Nov 2007 08:58:21 From: Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 2:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever contemplate a career as a professional chess player..." That's exactly right! Drug testing works in the NFL because the higher end paychecks are millions of dollars per year. In Chess, nobody makes anywhere that kind of money compared to true professional sports ATHLETES. We are in a situation where a computer can beat any human, and the world chess association is planned to combine Kirsan's personal desires to become President of Russia with domination of the entire world of chess. This is about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, and his lust to rule Russia, not chess. If Kirsan had the money, he would certainly drug test you or I for writing this if we appeared in his corrupt Russian Republic. We are nothing more than virtual citizens of Kalmykia, and pawns in Ilyumzhinov desires to govern Russia, and almost certainly start a nuclear war with the USA. The FIDE Delegates themselves fear Ilyumzhinov; most of them would be silenced if they did not agree with the party line. I wonder if Kirsan has plans to take over Russia, for himself? I bet Kirsan could not pass a drug test, and he secretly videotapes people pissing so he can arouse himself. cus Roberts   Date: 06 Nov 2007 08:46:12 From: Subject: Re: Why FIDE wants drug tests On Nov 6, 2:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > >From THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page > > 80). > > Not Keene On Testing > > Never in history has any illegal substance enabled anyone to win a > single game of chess. Yet FIDE is now pushing for universal drug > testing on the pretext of getting chess into the Olympics, thus making > it eligible for government funding in many nations. > > The Spanish Chess Federation, for example, receives about $320,000 a > year from the Council of Sports for testing 20 players at random. More > than 100 substances are banned, including excess levels of alcohol, > cannabis, and coffee. > > Frankly, I can't think of a better way to drive people away from chess > than by compelling them to pee in a cup in order to compete in > tournaments.Branding chess as an athletic endeavor is ludicrous, and > the United States Olympic Committee had the good sense to reject this > hobby as a sport. > > FIDE Goes Beserk > > Although chess is unlikely ever to become an Olympic sport, that > doesn't stop the bureaucrats from imposing their silly regulations. > "FIDE has made its decision, and players who do not accept drug > testing will not be able to play chess," wrote Dr. Stephen Press, vice- > chairman of FIDE's medical commission. > > "It almost made me cry, for I realize that from now on no kindred > soul, no young intellectual with any self-respect will ever > contemplate a career as a professional chess player," noted Dutch > grandmaster Hans Ree. "It is hard to say who are more despicable, the > FIDE bosses who invented this horror, the chess federations that saw > it happen but did nothing to prevent it, or those players who will > meekly submit to these senseless humiliations." > > "The Olympics are for physical sports, not board games. Their motto is > 'Faster, Stronger, Higher.'-not Cleverer," noted an outraged amateur. > > "Certain drugs can significantly improve athletic performance, while > at the same time often harming the athletes who take them. No such > problem has been established in chess, and chess players are therefore > properly suspicious and even resentful when told they have to be drug > tested. I have no sympathy with the people who claim they are fighting > to get chess into the Olympics; and I have actual animus toward > officials who try to impose controls on chess with the excuse that the > Olympics requires drug testing." > > Ray Keene, Britain's leading chess authority, argues that the real > agenda is to control the careers of players. Some excerpts from his > article in the Spectator: > > =B7 Performance enhancing drugs-steroids of the mind as it were-are not > and never have been a problem in chess. > > =B7 Although chess bureaucrats are enthusiastic about these new > regulations, players as a whole are neither ready nor willing to > submit to wholesale drug testing. > > =B7 FIDE's initiative is designed to extend bureaucratic control over > players who are inconveniently insubordinate rather than to stamp out > any real abuse in chess. > > =B7 Why do chess officials waste their time on this kind of nonsense > when it is clear that their constituencies have absolutely no interest > in it? > > =B7 This syndrome is absolutely rife in politics. I have seen it so many > times before. FIDE Delegates imperceptibly at first cease to represent > the views of their own country-instead they start to represent FIDE's > views to their country, thus becoming > a kind of fifth column! That is why nation states continually revolve > their ambassadors before they 'go native' in the quaint phraseology of > the British Foreign Office. > > =B7 The key is often insidious hospitality. Once the naive backwoods > chess politician starts rubbing shoulders with the FIDE bigwigs, > invitations to dinner start coming in, exclusive gatherings of top > people. It's not so much gifts and bribes as corruption by > association. > > =B7 We know what's best for Ivan and Ivan should shut up and take his > medicine. After all it's good for him and good for chess. Discipline- > that's what Ivan needs. Dear Larry, I take ATENOLEL 50 mg twice per day. It is a beta blocker, and slows my heart rate. Please explain to me how I am supposed to, in the position of head of state for chess on St Kitts and Nevis, in a war with Kirsan over admission, and keep my MEDICAL FILES PRIVATE? The facts are I can "cheat" with this drug, but I see no advantage of having my heart beat slower. It might help combining caffeine with a beta blocker, but the bottom line is that Tim Redman and the FIDE medical committee admits that FIDE has not decided the exact list of "banned" drugs from chess. I might add, I don't see the USA Fide Delegate pissing in a cup, or Kirsan pissing in a cup??? Does anyone honestly believe that I have any legal recourse for the privacy of my medical files? How exactly am I supposed to maintain privacy, and honor the soverignenty of a nation that I do seem to respresnt in FIDE, in absense of anyone else. Nobody can play chess in the World Chess Championship from St Kitts and Nevis, becasue the only player takes a banned drug.... Sincerely, cus Roberts Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE