Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[Harvey Williamson]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

ah well good to know that Frederic lied to david when he stated you were not involved.

I wasn't. You were given transparency here:

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php?p=448668#448668

Instead of appreciating the openness you exploit it with filthiness for your own purposes.

You know what?

I think you and Bob KNOW what's coming tomorrow.

It would explain a lot.

so you were not involved but your grammar mistakes were in the questions

Fred has told me more than once that CB should be the main site for Chess News. With loaded questions like the ones sent to David it is the Pravda of Chess. I think most, tommorrow, will see that as they did with the 1st set of questions and at the end of it all Rybka will still be banned. The only hope is if Vas makes his own appeal to the ICGA.

[bob]

Just disingenuous...

That's a nice english word to remember.

Let's recap, you made an accusation, in response you were given a look into a private discussion and now you bombard that as feigned?

That's pretty confusing.

During the questioning David asked Fred who was setting the questions as we spotted 'your english' he assured us you were not involved.

Well, he is correct. I contributed one question. We will see tomorrow if it was given value.

lol you were not involved but you contributed and obviously know what is in tomorrows article.

No, I don't. But I have a good guess. Don't be childish now.

You posted here that it will be published tomorrow. I was only aware it would be soon and expected it today. You really are a liar.

Correct. I was informed when part-1 was published and that part-2 was scheduled for wednesday.

Just out of the "clear blue" you were informed? I mean you had no input, and thereby no "vested interests" correct?

[bob]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:

The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case

"clearly influenced" does not imply "dictated the questions" now does it? Can you one day STOP with the hyperbole and distortion???

[bob]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

ah well good to know that Frederic lied to david when he stated you were not involved.

I wasn't. You were given transparency here:

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php?p=448668#448668

Instead of appreciating the openness you exploit it with filthiness for your own purposes.

You know what?

I think you and Bob KNOW what's coming tomorrow.

It would explain a lot.

I've SEEN the second half, remember?

[marcelk]

You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?
Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...

Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.
Miguel

First, the "word"
disingenuous
Adjective: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
[...]
Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".

To recapitalize:

1. Your sentiment is that Ed is clearly "disingenuous", but also clearly not "wrong". As apparently there are grades of dishonesty and Ed's is on the acceptable side as far as you are concerned.

2. Miguel's bewilderment of these differences as a non-native speaker is "ridiculous".

Will you please learn to read?

The "not wrong" meant, in small words, "It was not WRONG for him to supply questions to Friedel." SO there was nothing wrong with his doing that.

I learnt reading a long time ago. It is a very useful skill indeed. I will assist you on this one:

The word "that" in

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...

... makes both "wrong" and "disingenuous" refer to the same as the ones in the sentence to which it is replying, namely:

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

... which in turn refers to the immediate above:

You guys were feeding Friedel questions.

(Out of politeness here I censored the reference to the writer's lower back orifice's ornithology)

So "indigenous" and "wrong" reference the same thing. (For the moment, by the standard you've just laid out, we must dismiss any reading other than the literal one.)
That same thing happens to be "feeding questions", and certainly not

... to imply he had nothing to do with the questions, even though he did...

The reader can scroll up the thread and confirm that Miguel wasn't referencing that aspect at all with his "wrong" question. That is your fabrication alone.

I do not plan on learning to "read between the lines" if someone is a non-native English speaker. This is, and has been, an "English-speaking forum."

That is besides the point because no reading between the lines is required in this case. And even then, unfortunately this is not a native-English speakers-only forum and it never has been.

Now that we're diverting and giving each other well-meant advice on how to progress in learning English: reading between the lines, even though here it was not needed, is an extremely useful skill that I can wholeheartedly recommend mastering, not only when interfacing with non-native English speakers, but people in general.

I assume people mean what they write, and only what they write.

That is fair when it indeed starts with an accurate reading of what they wrote, which was all that was needed to prevent firing that ridiculous "ridiculous" bullet.

[bob]

You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?
Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...

Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.
Miguel

First, the "word"
disingenuous
Adjective: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
[...]
Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".

To recapitalize:

1. Your sentiment is that Ed is clearly "disingenuous", but also clearly not "wrong". As apparently there are grades of dishonesty and Ed's is on the acceptable side as far as you are concerned.

2. Miguel's bewilderment of these differences as a non-native speaker is "ridiculous".

Will you please learn to read?

The "not wrong" meant, in small words, "It was not WRONG for him to supply questions to Friedel." SO there was nothing wrong with his doing that.

I learnt reading a long time ago. It is a very useful skill indeed. I will assist you on this one:

The word "that" in

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...

... makes both "wrong" and "disingenuous" refer to the same as the ones in the sentence to which it is replying, namely:

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

... which in turn refers to the immediate above:

You guys were feeding Friedel questions.

(Out of politeness here I censored the reference to the writer's lower back orifice's ornithology)

So "indigenous" and "wrong" reference the same thing. (For the moment, by the standard you've just laid out, we must dismiss any reading other than the literal one.)
That same thing happens to be "feeding questions", and certainly not

... to imply he had nothing to do with the questions, even though he did...

The reader can scroll up the thread and confirm that Miguel wasn't referencing that aspect at all with his "wrong" question. That is your fabrication alone.

I do not plan on learning to "read between the lines" if someone is a non-native English speaker. This is, and has been, an "English-speaking forum."

That is besides the point because no reading between the lines is required in this case. And even then, unfortunately this is not a native-English speakers-only forum and it never has been.

Now that we're diverting and giving each other well-meant advice on how to progress in learning English: reading between the lines, even though here it was not needed, is an extremely useful skill that I can wholeheartedly recommend mastering, not only when interfacing with non-native English speakers, but people in general.

I assume people mean what they write, and only what they write.

That is fair when it indeed starts with an accurate reading of what they wrote, which was all that was needed to prevent firing that ridiculous "ridiculous" bullet.

You got it. "that" referred to "feeding friedel questions." "and that was not wrong."

The disingenuous did not come from "that was disingenuous" applying to his supplying questions. Came from the earlier part of the thread where he said he did not, then said he did, which I did call "disingenuous".


Nothing wrong with providing question. But disingenuous because he said he was NOT doing "that". There is a context here. The topic was whether Ed was involved with the questions or not. He initially implied "no". I said he was "disingenuous" because he pretended to know less than he did. Feeding them questions is perfectly OK. Just as our helping David with the answers is perfectly OK. But you notice that WE have been forthcoming and up front about our role in answering the questions? Not ed. That is disingenuous. And that is what the word was applied to...

[bob]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

The other side of the moon

Many stupid Rybka Forum questions. This reply from Levy is more interesting:

As to the procedure to decide the degree of punishment – this comes under Article III Section 1 of the ICGA Constitution, which is always published in the ICGA Journal prior to the tri-ennial meeting at which ICGA office bearers are elected. Section 1 states that the Executive Committee of the ICGA is charged with the administrative affairs of the association.

If this is the ICGA "Constitution" (I just googled it)
http://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/organisation/CONSTITUTION.pdf

then (read it all), it seems that the night clubs owners have better lawyers
And it seems to be Netherlands

Kai

Since when does a private organization need lawyers to draw up their charters??? We could have stipulated that cases of alleged cheating will be resolved by reading tea leaves, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it... Most of us would not play under that rule, of course, but that's irrelevant to what the charter could say.

[Rebel]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

ah well good to know that Frederic lied to david when he stated you were not involved.

I wasn't. You were given transparency here:

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php?p=448668#448668

Instead of appreciating the openness you exploit it with filthiness for your own purposes.

You know what?

I think you and Bob KNOW what's coming tomorrow.

It would explain a lot.

so you were not involved but your grammar mistakes were in the questions

You make me curious, you are going to explain yourself ?

[Rebel]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:

The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case

Believe what you want to believe. As said in the beginning you give me and Chris too much credit. We will see tomorrow if the one question I submitted is really present in part II. And if so, SO WHAT. It's a good question David going after the scalp of the CSVN. How disgusting.

[Laskos]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

The other side of the moon

Many stupid Rybka Forum questions. This reply from Levy is more interesting:

As to the procedure to decide the degree of punishment – this comes under Article III Section 1 of the ICGA Constitution, which is always published in the ICGA Journal prior to the tri-ennial meeting at which ICGA office bearers are elected. Section 1 states that the Executive Committee of the ICGA is charged with the administrative affairs of the association.

If this is the ICGA "Constitution" (I just googled it)
http://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/organisation/CONSTITUTION.pdf

then (read it all), it seems that the night clubs owners have better lawyers
And it seems to be Netherlands

Kai

Since when does a private organization need lawyers to draw up their charters??? We could have stipulated that cases of alleged cheating will be resolved by reading tea leaves, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it... .

No. In a (full) context, no. I mean for both, to resolve, and for the resolution itself, for example.

Kai