Chessbase Promoting RobboLito?

[Rolf]

Really ... some of you guys take chess servers too seriously. What's up with that? It is supposed to be just a place to have a few fun games or to test book lines or to observe matches in Chess Competitions all over the world. Again if you don't like how the server is run then take your business elsewhere, it would serve both sides. Some of the rules on Playchess I agree are silly, and I remember an earlier time where a sysop was a real pain in the ass and I did leave. But recently things have changed and I have not had any problems.

By the way the sysops represent Chessbase whether you like it or not. Asking if this is Chessbase policy everytime a sysop does something you don't like is silly. Simply email Chessbase with why you are not happy and the circumstances, if CB think you have a point they will get rid of the sysop. I know they did when I complained some time back. But really pushing for the use of a cloned engine, especially an engine which has been labeled as a clone by one of the CB products authors is going to get you nowhere. CB gets revenue from the sale of Rybka, if they do not protect the intelectual rights of one of their most profitable products then they would be open to lawsuits or simply a loss of Rybka. It is a business and legal decision and they have every right to do what they think is best for them. If you try to circumvent their system by using re-named cloned engine, they also have the right to hit hard.

Again if you don't like the way things are run then complain to CB directly, if you are not satisfied with CB response or don't get any response then move your business elsewhere. Simple as that.

Totaly agreed....it's common sense....
Dr.D

Yes, of course, but then the question is, Doctor, why you are supporting all this bahioo here from many also anonymous figures who simply dont understand what common sense or reality means! Please stop supporting these ill-informed or negatively tuned people. They are thinking that on such a forum they could find the freedom to express their fantasies by simply defamating honest people out of real life.

Look, the best example is Alexander Schmidt. Endlessly he's asking at least WAS asking if the ignoring of these alleged clones - without any further proof by Vas - wouldnt be prejudicial and therefore against all Human Rights. If once someone has told him that he's intentionally using illogical reasoning then he starts another repetition of the same tune. But the case is quite clear that anonymous people cant claim themselves or others for them what is impossible to do. Anonymous people are not existing in a legal understanding. If they want to be handled with care then they should open their curtains. With all the consequences out of potential wrongdoings. But they hide like thieves and chess cyber terrorists to protect themselves but to attack risklessly honest members of the community. Isnt this quite clear so far?

So again, if it's clear, why you are supporting those for whom it's not clear at all and possibly will never be clear because it would question their whole existence in a hiding place?

Anyway, shouldnt we simply come back to normal and agree that cyber terrorism cant solve any problems of our little field.

If this could be accepted here, we were many steps further in direction of rational development of computerchess.

Friendly regards, Rolf

P.S. Take the header above. The guy informed us about the evil CB sysops and already in his header he betrayed us because it's the total opposite. He wanted to inform us that CB normally should tolerate clones but for reasons unknown they just dont want to do this and that caused the guy headaches. NB anonymously because what should he stand for in real life if he were questioned for such a propaganda smear? He cant want this. So for me this is a typical example how people abuse the freedom they have on the net. Under anonymity as a shield. They would never do that with their own true identity or they are insane. What is always the alternative solution of course but I would never suppose this in the first place.

[kingliveson]

P.S. Take the header above. The guy informed us about the evil CB sysops and already in his header he betrayed us because it's the total opposite. He wanted to inform us that CB normally should tolerate clones but for reasons unknown they just dont want to do this and that caused the guy headaches. NB anonymously because what should he stand for in real life if he were questioned for such a propaganda smear? He cant want this. So for me this is a typical example how people abuse the freedom they have on the net. Under anonymity as a shield. They would never do that with their own true identity or they are insane. What is always the alternative solution of course but I would never suppose this in the first place.

The header/topic does not betray anyone. It is a question directed to ChessBase. I suggest you read the entirety of the initial post from top to bottom then you will see why. Who I am has been answered in this thread. I am not hiding behind any curtain. The name you see is my real name. ChessBase employees who posted on here know as well exactly who I am. They have my name, credit card number, email, and address. I don't suppose you want me to post that information here? Or should I post my US Social Security number on here and just may be that would give a better answer as to who I am.

I sincerely don't believe you've read the entirety of the initial post. The ChessBase employee behaved badly and he got caught red handed. You can't accuse one of promoting illegal activity and not back it up. You can't go "willi nillie" and start disabling a service that is fully paid for without there being a contractual violation. Let’s even forget contractual violation--how about show evidence of the slightest ethical/moral deviation. The initial post gave you direct documentation of exactly what occurred.

Have you not read where he boots and bans/deleted a newly created account for no reason even when ChessBase’s own policy states that you have 5 days to enter a serial number for each account created? Has there been denial by the ChessBase staffer who responded here that what was posted is not exactly what happened? Again, I suggest you read the initial posting before adding further comments.

Creating a Nickname:
1. When creating nicks for use on the server one is expected to exercise prudence and common sense. No user on the server shall be permitted to use a nick which is obscene, controversial (i.e. Saddam Hussein), or sexual in nature. Failure to comply with this rule will result in immediate deletion of the nick in question.
2. Personal Profiles are not to contain vulgar language of any kind or pictures which may be considered offensive to other users. Please remember that this is a family oriented server and there are children who play here.
3. When creating a new nick please keep in mind that no unregistered account will be allowed to play in engine room,Only Valid registered accounts .New users will have 5 days to enter the serial number provided in the manual of the booklet,or via server serial purchase.Unless otherwise arranged with sysop or chessbase empolyee.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Really ... some of you guys take chess servers too seriously. What's up with that? It is supposed to be just a place to have a few fun games or to test book lines or to observe matches in Chess Competitions all over the world. Again if you don't like how the server is run then take your business elsewhere, it would serve both sides. Some of the rules on Playchess I agree are silly, and I remember an earlier time where a sysop was a real pain in the ass and I did leave. But recently things have changed and I have not had any problems.

By the way the sysops represent Chessbase whether you like it or not. Asking if this is Chessbase policy everytime a sysop does something you don't like is silly. Simply email Chessbase with why you are not happy and the circumstances, if CB think you have a point they will get rid of the sysop. I know they did when I complained some time back. But really pushing for the use of a cloned engine, especially an engine which has been labeled as a clone by one of the CB products authors is going to get you nowhere. CB gets revenue from the sale of Rybka, if they do not protect the intelectual rights of one of their most profitable products then they would be open to lawsuits or simply a loss of Rybka. It is a business and legal decision and they have every right to do what they think is best for them. If you try to circumvent their system by using re-named cloned engine, they also have the right to hit hard.

Again if you don't like the way things are run then complain to CB directly, if you are not satisfied with CB response or don't get any response then move your business elsewhere. Simple as that.

Totaly agreed....it's common sense....
Dr.D

Yes, of course, but then the question is, Doctor, why you are supporting all this bahioo here from many also anonymous figures who simply dont understand what common sense or reality means! Please stop supporting these ill-informed or negatively tuned people. They are thinking that on such a forum they could find the freedom to express their fantasies by simply defamating honest people out of real life.

Look, the best example is Alexander Schmidt. Endlessly he's asking at least WAS asking if the ignoring of these alleged clones - without any further proof by Vas - wouldnt be prejudicial and therefore against all Human Rights. If once someone has told him that he's intentionally using illogical reasoning then he starts another repetition of the same tune. But the case is quite clear that anonymous people cant claim themselves or others for them what is impossible to do. Anonymous people are not existing in a legal understanding. If they want to be handled with care then they should open their curtains. With all the consequences out of potential wrongdoings. But they hide like thieves and chess cyber terrorists to protect themselves but to attack risklessly honest members of the community. Isnt this quite clear so far?

So again, if it's clear, why you are supporting those for whom it's not clear at all and possibly will never be clear because it would question their whole existence in a hiding place?

Anyway, shouldnt we simply come back to normal and agree that cyber terrorism cant solve any problems of our little field.

If this could be accepted here, we were many steps further in direction of rational development of computerchess.

Friendly regards, Rolf

P.S. Take the header above. The guy informed us about the evil CB sysops and already in his header he betrayed us because it's the total opposite. He wanted to inform us that CB normally should tolerate clones but for reasons unknown they just dont want to do this and that caused the guy headaches. NB anonymously because what should he stand for in real life if he were questioned for such a propaganda smear? He cant want this. So for me this is a typical example how people abuse the freedom they have on the net. Under anonymity as a shield. They would never do that with their own true identity or they are insane. What is always the alternative solution of course but I would never suppose this in the first place.

Again Rolf,my two main concers are:

1.Claiming for the second time that a particular engine is Rybka's clone without bothering to prove it...a major issue

2.Not releasing the bug fix Rybka 3+ that was promised to the customers....an ultra major issue

Note that I didn't write a single word regarding Rybka's origin and I won't as I can't prove it and I also believe that Vasik has created something extraordinary to make Rybka play like this....I have no problems with that....
Dr.D

[Harvey Williamson]

ChessBase employees who posted on here know as well exactly who I am. They have my name, credit card number

Which ChessBase Employee posted here that has access to your name and credit card details? I am neither an employee nor do I have access to your credit card details. I am a volunteer that helps out when I can although some do seem to expect me to be available 24/7 and during my current holiday abroad.

[kingliveson]

Which ChessBase Employee posted here that has access to your name and credit card details? I am neither an employee nor do I have access to your credit card details. I am a volunteer that helps out when I can although some do seem to expect me to be available 24/7 and during my current holiday abroad.

It is true that ChessBase has all my information. Thanks for clarifying that you no have access to these data.

Perhaps, you could respond to this:

Have you not read where he boots and bans/deleted a newly created account for no reason even when ChessBase’s own policy states that you have 5 days to enter a serial number for each account created? Has there been denial by the ChessBase staffer who responded here that what was posted is not exactly what happened?

[Harvey Williamson]

Which ChessBase Employee posted here that has access to your name and credit card details? I am neither an employee nor do I have access to your credit card details. I am a volunteer that helps out when I can although some do seem to expect me to be available 24/7 and during my current holiday abroad.

It is true that ChessBase has all my information. Thanks for clarifying that you no have access to these data.

Perhaps, you could respond to this:

Have you not read where he boots and bans/deleted a newly created account for no reason even when ChessBase’s own policy states that you have 5 days to enter a serial number for each account created? Has there been denial by the ChessBase staffer who responded here that what was posted is not exactly what happened?

Why? I am on holiday. But ok if someone creates multiple nicks after being sanctioned for the sole purpose of continuing doing what they were in your case silenced for they will be deleted especially if they do not have serial numbers.

[kingliveson]

Perhaps, you could respond to this:

Have you not read where he boots and bans/deleted a newly created account for no reason even when ChessBase’s own policy states that you have 5 days to enter a serial number for each account created? Has there been denial by the ChessBase staffer who responded here that what was posted is not exactly what happened?

Why? I am on holiday. But ok if someone creates multiple nicks after being sanctioned for the sole purpose of continuing doing what they were in your case silenced for they will be deleted especially if they do not have serial numbers.

Multiple nicks?

1. Explain the reason my account was muted.
2. Am I entitled to another nick?
3. Did the nick I created break the rules?
4. Is it true that he deleted the only additional nick I had created to speak with ChessBase staffer?
5. Do I have 5 days to enter a serial for a newly created nick?

http://www.schach-server.de/gameserverm ... rchess.htm


As for the reason I created the nick, after he muted my main account, I had no way of reaching ChessBase. After 6 emails to the company since 11.25.09, I have yet to date received a single response. According to your own policy, employees/staffers can be reached on the server.

I was forced to create yet another nick after he deleted my only additional nick. In total, I created 2 nicks. The chat log below shows the conversation before he deletes my first nick.

This is the conversation with with initial created nick:

Holger_Lieske: Hi
Holger_Lieske: you got a reply
->Holger_Lieske: I did not recieve a reply
->Holger_Lieske: What rule did i violate that warrant the muting of my account?
Holger_Lieske: check the email 1st, please, then talk
->Holger_Lieske: Server email or personal email i used in contacting you?
Holger_Lieske: email
Holger_Lieske: xxxx@xxxx.com
->Holger_Lieske: You might have to resend it as i dont see it.
Holger_Lieske: no sorry.
Holger_Lieske: I will not sent it again
Holger_Lieske: I have even spent enough time with you
Holger_Lieske: dont get me wrong
Holger_Lieske: but there is a clear line
Holger_Lieske: and YOU crossed that
Holger_Lieske: bye
->Holger_Lieske: You will not resend the email though i dont have it?
Holger_Lieske: honestly Sir, there are 2 ways
->Holger_Lieske: And you will continue to mute my account though i violated no policy?
Holger_Lieske: you want to start that theater again?
Holger_Lieske: okay
Connection to server lost, 17:35:36 (Boots and bans the account)
Trying playchess.com

[Harvey Williamson]

You created 2 new nicks and the answers you have had from me and Holger are answers from CB and this is the final one you will get from me. Holger muted you and he will lift it when he sees fit.

[kingliveson]

You created 2 new nicks and the answers you have had from me and Holger are answers from CB and this is the final one you will get from me. Holger muted you and he will lift it when he sees fit.

There seems to be a pattern as is apparent in my initial post with the ChessBase staffers. When pressed fully to answer, they divulge to this authoritarian mode. I am not using your service for free. I paid money to use it and you owe me an explanation as to why you are reducing my service. If you don't want my business, prorate my account for the time used and refund my money. This way you wont have to answer questions you don't feel you should answer. I have requested this officially to ChessBase and of course, I did not get a response.

From: Franklin <xxx@xxx.com>
Subject: Playchess Refund

Date: 12/02/2009 10:48 AM
To: info@chessbase.com


Hello,

I purchased a serial number for playchess.com on September 30th. At this point, I am not satisfied with the service. Holger Lieske, one of the sysops on the server has made it clear to me that my business is not wanted. I would like to know how I can get a refund for the remaining months left in the one year service.

Franklin

Serial: xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx

[kingliveson]

Going Rogue: ChessBase/Playchess SysOps Chronicles


RobboLito discussion on playchess.com is not prohibited. I posted a question asking whether banning of RobboLito chess engine use was company’s policy or the rule of one of the sysops (Harvey Williamson). This question was phrased this way because several weeks back when prompted regarding this rule, Harvey Williamson stated that he had received a personal email from Vasik Rajlich confirming RobboLito to be a clone of Rybka. The emails between Holger Lieske (ChessBase staffer) and me tell the rest of the story.

From: Franklin
Subject: Chessbase Discussion--Mute
Date: 12/01/2009 05:10 PM
To: Holger Lieske



My user id is xxxx.

Could you please explain which playchess/chessbase policy I violated that warrant you muting my account? I was not abrasive or rude in any manner. I posted the chat conversation in the engine room to the public chat. You then asked what my problem was. I said i did not understand what you meant by that. You replied you were warning me. I said that I believe this conversation should be public. You replied that you are muting me. Could you please explain the reason for this decision?


Franklin

WG: Chessbase Discussion--Mute // promoting Robbolito&#8207;
From: Holger Lieske
Sent: Tue 12/01/09 6:01 PM
To: Franklin

Von: Holger Lieske [mailto@xxx.xxx]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2009 23:25
An: 'Franklin'
Cc: 'Rob Osborne'; 'Harvey Williamson'
Betreff: AW: Chessbase Discussion--Mute // promoting Robbolito

Hello,

I am sorry, but I wanted to tell you in private. Since you were not interested in that, I had no other choice.

Since you took that even not needed discussion into the channels, it seemed to me, you wanted to promote Robbolito and Ippolito. We cannot accept this. You have received before, in chat to all, tells by me learning you that Robbolito is considered by CB as clone engine.

How do we proceed now? You should keep in mind: I will not allow any clones on playchess. I will not allow campaings to support and promote clones and guys who steal intellectual property.

Best regards - Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Holger Lieske
SysOp www.playchess.com - www.schach.de

ChessBase Schachprogramme Schachdatenbank Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Mexikoring 35 - 22297 Hamburg - Germany
Tel.: ++49 40 - 63 90 60 - 0 Fax: ++49 40 - 630 12 82
Geschäftsführer: Matthias Wüllenweber, Rainer Woisin
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 40336
USt.-Id.-Nr. DE 118644875

RE: WG: Chessbase Discussion--Mute // promoting Robbolito&#8207;
From: Franklin
Sent: Tue 12/01/09 7:33 PM
To: Holger Lieske

Hi,

The subject of your email suggests and implies that I was promoting Robbolito or an illegal activity. This is not the case. The debate was whether or not the banning of Robblolito is a Chessbase policy or the policy of an individual, namely Harvey Williamson. Please provide documentation supporting your claim.

I summarized the debate and posted it on the English Channel. This is what I posted:

“Well, I have asked the sysop here whether or not the banning of Robbolito in the engine room is Company's policy or the policy of an individual (Harvey Williamson). Holger_Lieske responded that it is CB policy. I then stated that I have contacted CB and did not receive any response indicating this is a CB policy. Holger_Lieske say he does not know why and he is not part of the bureau. Then where is he getting this information?”

Immediately after posting the above comment, you contacted me asking for a private chat. I said I would rather the conversation be public though I did not post any other public comments. Your next statement to me was " I am warning you." You asked me what my problems were, and I replied I did not understand what you meant by that. You then sent me a message that you are muting me and proceeded to log me off.

Since my main account was muted, I created another account to talk to Rob Osborne who then gave me your email. Harvey Williamson was around so I asked why my account was muted. He said it was noted to be “comments on robbo.” I asked whether "comments about robbo" were a violation of Chessbase’s policy and he replied the engine is not allowed to be used. You (Holger_Lieske) then came on and sent me a private chat that I should check my email.

After noticing I did not receive your email and related this to you, you replied it was not your problem and that you will not send the email again. You proceed to boot me from the server and banned the newly created account which I am entitled. I had to create another account and asked Harvey Williamson what in the world was going on?! He told me he was on vacation and to contact Chessbase.

You came on again and to what could be described as harassing me. You proceed to say thing like "Free intellectual all property" and “Free Robbolito." It was not until you found out I was documenting the conversation did you change your tone towards me. This is when you decided you will resend the email explaining the reason for muting my account. You then said there was no reason to talk about a public discussion in the English Channel.

I paid for full access and I am entitled to that. I have not violated Chessbase’s policy and I am asking that my account be reinstated to its full state. If you have documentation that what I have said so far is not exactly what happened and that I violated Chessbase’s policy by promoting illegal activity which is implied as reason for your decision, make it available otherwise, reinstate my account.

Franklin

AW: WG: Chessbase Discussion--Mute // promoting Robbolito&#8207;
From: Holger Lieske
Sent: Tue 12/01/09 9:10 PM
To: Franklin


Dear Sir,

you won't get me into an endless conversation nor discussion. You got told again and again: Robbolito not allowed on Playchess.com. The who or what is simply not your business.
Nickname "xxxx": enter your full name, then send me an email. I will give the rank you can be awarded according the common requirements.
Chat: Your quote of my chat in the English channel is simply falsifying my chat to you. I will no way accept that. Right now I don't see any reason to give the chat right back.

"Kingliveson (English): Well, I have asked the sysop here whether or not the banning of Robbolito in the engine room is Company's policy or the policy of an individual (Harvey Williamson). Holger_Lieske responded that it is CB policy. I then stated that I have contacted CB and did not receive any response indicating this is a CB policy. Holger_Lieske say he does not know why and he is not part of the bureau. Then where is he getting this information?"

Best regards - Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Holger Lieske
SysOp www.playchess.com - www.schach.de

ChessBase Schachprogramme Schachdatenbank Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Mexikoring 35 - 22297 Hamburg - Germany
Tel.: ++49 40 - 63 90 60 - 0 Fax: ++49 40 - 630 12 82
Geschäftsführer: Matthias Wüllenweber, Rainer Woisin
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 40336
USt.-Id.-Nr. DE 118644875

PS: stop to create new nicks without serial no.

RE: AW: WG: Chessbase Discussion--Mute // promoting Robbolito&#8207;
From: Franklin
Sent: Tue 12/01/09 10:12 PM
To: Holger Lieske


Mr. Lieske,

As to “the who and what” not being any of my business, I beg to differ. Yes, it has been mentioned by sysop on playchess.com that RobboLito use is not permitted. However, many wonder whether this decision was a company’s policy or individuals creating their own rules based on friendship with the author of the supposedly cloned engine. Furthermore, there is no public statement by either the author of the supposedly clone[d] chess engine or its distributors that RobboLito is an illegal program. Regardless, I have adhered to these rules not to use the engine.

You say my quote of you in the English Channel was falsification of your chat to me. I did not post any private comments between you and me in the English Channel—there was no private chat between us until I posted in the English Channel. Everything was done in the public section of the Engine Room and it was the reason I wanted our private conversation to be public. There were many witnesses who took part in the discussion and can support what I have stated. Which of my statement do you find not to be accurate?

Again, I ask that my account be reinstated to its full capacity. There is no reason at all for my account to be muted. I was in no way rude to you or any other members and did not break any rules. If anything, you were harsh towards me for no reason until you figured I was logging the chats. You still have not said which policy I violated that warrants the muting of my account. Asking about “the who and what” is not a policy violation. Summarizing the content of a public discussion and posting it on the English Channel is not a policy violation. You ought not to treat people paying money to keep the server up this way. Don’t forget that without the people there would be no playchess.com….


Franklin

Playchess.com Log

Holger_Lieske: Hi
Holger_Lieske: you got a reply
->Holger_Lieske: I did not recieve a reply
->Holger_Lieske: What rule did i violate that warrant the muting of my account?
Holger_Lieske: check the email 1st, please, then talk
->Holger_Lieske: Server email or personal email i used in contacting you?
Holger_Lieske: email
Holger_Lieske: xxxx@xxxx.com
->Holger_Lieske: You might have to resend it as i dont see it.
Holger_Lieske: no sorry.
Holger_Lieske: I will not sent it again
Holger_Lieske: I have even spent enough time with you
Holger_Lieske: dont get me wrong
Holger_Lieske: but there is a clear line
Holger_Lieske: and YOU crossed that
Holger_Lieske: bye
->Holger_Lieske: You will not resend the email though i dont have it?
Holger_Lieske: honestly Sir, there are 2 ways
->Holger_Lieske: And you will continue to mute my account though i violated no policy?
Holger_Lieske: you want to start that theater again?
Holger_Lieske: okay
Connection to server lost, 17:35:36 [Boots and bans the account]
Trying playchess.com

Playchess.com Log:

Holger_Lieske: Sir?
Holger_Lieske: do you want to create now hundreds of nicks?
Holger_Lieske: I will not accept that
->Holger_Lieske: Yes, I am listening
->Holger_Lieske: No
Holger_Lieske: to tell you again: I sent an email
->Holger_Lieske: That is not my intent
Holger_Lieske: if you did not receive it: not my problem

I have not received a reply since my last email to Holger Lieske and I don’t expect one because he does not have a case against me. My Bishop Ranking was demoted to a Pawn and my account remains muted. After many attempts to reach ChessBase, there has not been a single response or acknowledge of my efforts, I was forced to make this public.

This story does not end here. Kevin Frayer who was there in the engine room when I posted my initial question and witnessed the event, responded to a topic I posted in a public forum unaffiliated to ChessBase/Playchess.com--he voiced his opinion on the current situation at playchess.com. Then he received a threatening email from Rob Osborne, a playchess SysOp with the id, The Referee:

From: the_referee@xxxxx.net
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:37 PM
To: kevinfrayer@xxxxx.net
Cc: Lieske, Holger ; Williamson, Harvey
Subject: Your Talkchess Post re: Franklin T.

Kevin,

I have read (and saved) your post from earlier on Talkchess.com (that is now deleted) regarding Holger and Frankin T. Btw, don't ask me how or why it was deleted as I have no clue, except to say, your insults of Holger were unwarranted and way, way "beyond the pale."

Let me also say you do not have a complete understanding of this incident. Were you here every day maybe you would. So it is very inappropriate for you to stick your nose in some incident where it does not belong, as you do not have all the facts.
If you wanted "the simple truth" you could have had that. No... instead you wish to make vile criticisms.

Just as you have insulted Holger, you have insulted myself and Harvey, as I fully support and agree with Holger's actions (and I dare say Harvey would be in full agreement too).
The sooner you realize you have the paying privilege to enter a place of business, and treat that privilege just as you would if you were a guest in someone else’s home, the better off you will be.

And just to be sure, you say at the end of that post, "Have no allusions, an organized resistance is emerging in the engine room." Is this some kind of threat? As an American, you should not find it hard to come to terms with Computer Tampering is a violation the Indiana State and the U.S. Federal Criminal Codes.

Regards,
Rob Osborne

The next time Kevin logged into playchess.com, he was harassed by one we believed to be Holger Lieske (Kibitzbot) who subsequently muted his account. Below is the log of this encounter:

Playchess.com log

Kibitzbot: you are the guy calling me names?
Kibitzbot: "poor english" and so on?
->Kibitzbot: all depends..who you are?
Kibitzbot: you know who I am
->Kibitzbot: I do not
->Kibitzbot: tell me
Kibitzbot: i dont want you chat here
Kibitzbot: it is enough if you do on talkchess
->Kibitzbot: lets talk on Skype
Kibitzbot: no, Sir
Kibitzbot: I will not waste my time with you
->Kibitzbot: then go away
Kibitzbot: okay. [Mutes and boots the account]

The story continues... The next day after it had been made known to many users that we have amongst us a rogue individual, members started asking question. While curious members were asking questions, I was logged in with another account that I had recently purchased--this account is not affiliated to my other account that had been muted--I received a private message from Holger Lieske as I minded my own business; he made a statement and then he mutes the account. This is what he said:

Playchess.com log

"Kibitzbot: thank you.
Kibitzbot: take a screen shot and post that at talkchess"

We are talking about paying customers here that rogue employees/staffers are treating like filth. I find it difficult to believe that ChessBase as a company would know about the current situation and not find it reprehensible.