K I Hyams wrote: Ed, in the light of those two points, will you now tell us whether or not you were involved in the compilation of the questions?
Involved is the wrong word. As already said that would be too much credit
But here is the story. Frederic contacted me and asked specific information on various issues as preparation for his interview with David.
During the conversation I proposed one question to David, listed below.
I also contributed questions of the Soren Riis group responsible for the Chessbase article to Frederic and he told me: I would like to make it clear that the interview is by the ChessBase editors, not the Riis/SchrÃ¶der group.
Frederic at his best
Any way, this is my proposed question for David to Frederic, tomorrow we will see what my alleged influence on Chessbase is really worth
I submit a question for David if that suits your planning.
There is one other type of offence that I would like to mention here in connection with cloning, namely entering a cloned program created by someone other than the entrant, in a tournament, with the entrant knowing it be a clone. One might draw an analogy between the criminal law offence of theft and the crime of handling goods knowing them to be stolen. This offence in the computer chess world is similar to one that recently caused something of a scandal in the Netherlands, when a board member of the Dutch Computer Chess Association (CSVN), the body that organises the prestigious Leiden tournaments entered a pirated copy of Junior in one of the major online annual tournaments. (See here for more details.) Put simply, if someone knows that a program has been ripped off, either by cloning or through piracy, they will not be permitted to use a ripped off copy to compete in any ICGA event.
Here -- out of the blue -- after having scandalized Vas in public Levy also attacks Cock de Gorter about a case in which he notable was a negotiator. A case (a storm in a cup of tea) in which Cock offered apologies. Can you ask him why he did that?
Here is Cocks reply in email to David which I posted with his permission.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... n%20gorter
Cock's response completely misses the mark. The ICGA responded to the CVSN nonsense and pointed out that each and every assumption they stated was outright false.
For example: The ICGA did not review any version of rybka that participated in an ICGA event. Completely false. 2.3.2a competed, we have the direct statement by Lukas (the operator) to that effect.
Another example: Staunch rybka supporters changed their minds suddenly and decided Vas was guilty. Yet statements by several of these "supporters" pointed out that it took a year or two of watching the investigation and studying the evidence before they "suddenly changed their mind" (apparently suddenly can mean over a period of > 2 years to cock.)
In fact, each reason he gave for discounting the ICGA decision was completely false. And you are just harping on the illegal use of a copy of Fritz, which, in and of itself was also wrong, although completely unrelated to and separate from the ICGA investigation...
For the record, your question did not make it in. It had nothing to do with the investigation...
But there were OTHER questions that you guys supplied. Once the others are public, I might be willing to point a key one out. Although I really don't want to expose your "English usage" issue as it is helpful to recognize your writing when needed...