Jerzy wrote:
The reasoning that "nice women can`t play chess and must cheat to win"
doesn`t convince me at all.

I've already explained my reasoning for suggesting that; you seem to be
completely ignoring my explanation of what I meant and why I wrote it.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Voodoo Monk (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a man of God that has mystical powers
but not like you'd expect!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
news
The reasoning that "nice women can`t play chess and must cheat to win"
doesn`t convince me at all.

I've already explained my reasoning for suggesting that; you seem to be
completely ignoring my explanation of what I meant and why I wrote it.

Dave, you seem to read without understanding and take everything too
personally. Where did I write that I am addressing that statement to you ?
I am against such statements in general because they are simply false.

Regards,
Jerzy

Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

DU

I told you what?

The sad reality is that I personally know that cheating is pretty popular in
such events. It's a tough job those ICC guys had. It's just too easy to try to
cheat these days.

John Fernandez

I write this post in the hope of clarifying an evident misunderstanding.

"Jerzy" wrote in message ...(to David Richerby):
"David Richerby" wrote in message
news
Jerzy wrote to "Doctor Unclear":
The reasoning that "nice women can`t play chess and must cheat to win"
doesn`t convince me at all.

I've already explained my reasoning for suggesting that; you seem to be
completely ignoring my explanation of what I meant and why I wrote it.

Dave, you seem to read without understanding and take everything too
personally. Where did I write that I am addressing that statement to you?
I am against such statements in general because they are simply false.

*Perhaps* (this is only my hypothesis) this misunderstanding between Jerzy
Ciruk and David Richerby has arisen out of the context of another thread.

In the thread, "kosteniuk Cheater?!" (15 March 2004) David Richerby wrote to me:
"I wonder how much of the problem is that people have a great deal of difficulty
believing that a beautiful woman might be capable of anything other than being
beautiful."

Then EZoto wrote to David Richerby:
"Well you have to admit that she (Alexandra Kosteniuk) was more interested in
selling her beauty than spending time in chess. Now that chess is demanded of
her instead of hard work she thinks *she can do it the easy way* (by cheating?)
while still maintaining her image. Nope...."

Then Jerzy Ciruk wrote to EZoto, *not* to David Richerby:
"...If your claiming is true (*you claim that she cheated*) so the logical
conclusion would be that deceiving is what she plays well both in chess and
in real life...."

As far as I can tell, Jerzy Ciruk was addressing his statement,
"you claim that she cheated", to EZoto, *not* to David Richerby.

"Thread ordering is a tool of navigation, not a tool of 'ownership'."
--David Richerby (15 February 2004, "New ICC super-site?")

I would submit that 'thread ordering' should be followed closely enough as a
'tool of navigation' in order to avoid colliding with some less perceptible
hazards in conveying one's meaning.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
m...
I write this post in the hope of clarifying an evident misunderstanding.

[...]

I would submit that 'thread ordering' should be followed closely enough as
a
'tool of navigation' in order to avoid colliding with some less
perceptible
hazards in conveying one's meaning.


Nick, thank you for the clarifying the matter

Regards,
Jerzy

eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message ...
Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

DU

I told you what?


You once told me that a participant won a book or free months in a
previous prize USCF tourney and he was caught later in another USCF
prize tourney. I clearly remember you telling me that. Now, ICC
removed the USCFbarred helpfile, otherwise I would have been able to
tell you what was his handle.

http://www.chessclub.com/news/937

http://www.chessclub.com/help/USCFseries

http://www.chessclub.com/help/USCFseriesbarred


The sad reality is that I personally know that cheating is pretty popular in
such events. It's a tough job those ICC guys had.

As soon as march 1998, I told ICC that the detection task needed
(sterilizing prize tourney results) would not be as simple, quick and
easy as a routine urine lab test.
If you can not figure out hundreds of cheaters who have been already
playing hundreds and thousands of games (and still playing hundreds of
games per month), then where is the sensible logic of risking
furthermore with prize tourneys? If you have proven that you failed
and still fail overall, what reasoning makes you reach the conclusion
that you are ready for tougher challenge?

It's just too easy to try to
cheat these days.

John Fernandez

From the very first beginning of that USCF prize tourneys in march
1998, it was blatant obvious that ICC should not have held such
tourney when ICC knew very well that cheating was already prevalent,
alive and alive all over. Many speedtrap group members agreed with me
on this.
It was more than an error of judgment: it was temerity going ahead
despite everything ICC already knew and despite everything that ICC
had reasons to fear.
When the only logic that drives a server is to "Grow big and grow
fast: then you'll take the lead, impose the tempo on the market,
etc.", then you make such kind of decision.

DU

eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message ...
Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

DU

I told you what?


Here's part of that once public USCFbarred and CFCbarred ICC helpfile:

C RadRichH
C GBPacker
C SANDBAGER
H YourRATING
C Mercenarie
C okiepro
C imbvm
C TommyPA
C BobbyFischer-Jr
C Avalanche
C ScholasticWiz
C WORF
C Fuhu
C BigPawn
C BIGBADAD
C LightsOut
C Ray-Ban
C iyang23
C besthund
C Karlitos
C Indelicato
H Grindio
H Katita
H CHUZIN

C = strong evidence of computer use.
H = strong evidence of receiving human assistance.

Now, you once told me that BIGBADAD (or was it BigPawn?) had won a
book or free months before playing in another prize tourney where he
was caught.

The sad reality is that I personally know that cheating is pretty popular in
such events.

99% of normal, ordinary people who might not know about cheating,
prize tourneys, internet chess, etc... would then ask a perfectly
valid question he if you know that cheating is pretty popular in
such events, then why do you hold these anyways?? Aren't you asking
for trouble?

It's a tough job those ICC guys had.

There is no need to do such tough, long and entirely volunteer job for
an ICC that does not want to tackle the problem at the source. If the
ICC owners only want to keep cheaters and recidivists, to keep growing
its customer base and to keep giving cheaters more and more chances to
cheat again, then they don't have to change anything on ICC. When ICC
admins and ICC share holders recommend to have a nice chat with
cheaters, recidivists, then they should do it themselves: if they
truly believe that nice chats (or extensive preformated warningology)
can solve everything, then they prove their entire failure to
understand the cheating phenomenon and they prove they are addicted to
$49. subscription fees.

It's just too easy to try to
cheat these days.

John Fernandez

It's also very easy to give prizes to cheaters. Now, Steve Kelly once
said:

"
In the past, they've had computer cheats win prizes in a tournament,
KNEW the winner used a computer, and rewarded the prize anyway. I
would know. I was the one stuck having to mail the prize.
(...)
I mean, specifically, the following:

(a) A player who was already flagged as a Computer cheat, who
(b) Demanded a refund and then,
(c) Got himself a new handle, then
(d) Entered a tourney, won a prize, then
(e) Was identified as the cheat and (C)'d again.
(f) I was then told to mail the computer cheat the prize he won.

And one of them [ICC share holders] was the one who instructed (f).
"

coming from
ICC and Cheating
rec.games.chess.misc
2002-07-18

DU

"Doctor Unclear" wrote in message
om...
eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message
...
Yes, I could but not many details. I was not involved into that case.
(After march 1998, I always boycotted detection of prize tourney cases
on ICC.) In fact, it was John Fernandez, tournament director for USCF
in those ICC prize tourneys, who told me so. I could find you the
handle of that cheater. He was listed in the uscfbarred helpfile on
ICC.

DU

I told you what?


Here's part of that once public USCFbarred and CFCbarred ICC helpfile:

C RadRichH
C GBPacker
C SANDBAGER
H YourRATING
C Mercenarie
C okiepro
C imbvm
C TommyPA
C BobbyFischer-Jr
C Avalanche
C ScholasticWiz
C WORF
C Fuhu
C BigPawn
C BIGBADAD
C LightsOut
C Ray-Ban
C iyang23
C besthund
C Karlitos
C Indelicato
H Grindio
H Katita
H CHUZIN

C = strong evidence of computer use.
H = strong evidence of receiving human assistance.

Now, you once told me that BIGBADAD (or was it BigPawn?) had won a
book or free months before playing in another prize tourney where he
was caught.

The sad reality is that I personally know that cheating is pretty
popular in
such events.

99% of normal, ordinary people who might not know about cheating,
prize tourneys, internet chess, etc... would then ask a perfectly
valid question he if you know that cheating is pretty popular in
such events, then why do you hold these anyways?? Aren't you asking
for trouble?

It's a tough job those ICC guys had.

There is no need to do such tough, long and entirely volunteer job for
an ICC that does not want to tackle the problem at the source. If the
ICC owners only want to keep cheaters and recidivists, to keep growing
its customer base and to keep giving cheaters more and more chances to
cheat again, then they don't have to change anything on ICC. When ICC
admins and ICC share holders recommend to have a nice chat with
cheaters, recidivists, then they should do it themselves: if they
truly believe that nice chats (or extensive preformated warningology)
can solve everything, then they prove their entire failure to
understand the cheating phenomenon and they prove they are addicted to
$49. subscription fees.

It's just too easy to try to
cheat these days.

John Fernandez

It's also very easy to give prizes to cheaters. Now, Steve Kelly once
said:

"
In the past, they've had computer cheats win prizes in a tournament,
KNEW the winner used a computer, and rewarded the prize anyway. I
would know. I was the one stuck having to mail the prize.
(...)
I mean, specifically, the following:

(a) A player who was already flagged as a Computer cheat, who
(b) Demanded a refund and then,
(c) Got himself a new handle, then
(d) Entered a tourney, won a prize, then
(e) Was identified as the cheat and (C)'d again.
(f) I was then told to mail the computer cheat the prize he won.

And one of them [ICC share holders] was the one who instructed (f).
"

coming from
ICC and Cheating
rec.games.chess.misc
2002-07-18

DU

If u have the proof from analyis of games please provide it, otherwise, take
your Nazi(C) (C)omputer (C)heating talk someplace else !

DU you would make a good KKK member !!