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