Peter Stein Jul 5 1994, 8:32 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 15:11:01 GMT Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 8:11 am Subject: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to their games. Darooha gave several reasons which I felt were very flimsy and I also got the impression that there were other reasons which he wasn't going to share with me. Anyway the reasons he gave: 1. Makes ICS more public. I think more intrusive is the correct qualification. Isn't the ability to observe games in progress "public" enough? What was wrong with ICS as it was? What my opponent and I do with our game score is our business. If either of us choose to make the game public we will do so, but to have some disinterested 3rd party forcibly make it public is simply out of line. As I told Darooha, I generally don't photocopy my OTB game scores and distribute them to anyone at large. This is just common sense if you're a serious tournament player. Perhaps the presumption is that ICS players are: a. Not serious b. Play chess only on ICS c. Have an ICS opening repertoire that is completely different from the regular OTB repertoire Well, I can assure you that none of these points are true for me personally and I suspect this holds for a good number of other 2200+ players as well. It is not unreasonable for players to want some privacy. 2. Make matches between titled players more value added (or something to that effect). Makes no sense to me. Again, like other games these can be observed. More importantly, big events are advertised in advance, so if you miss it you have only yourself to blame. Darooha threw in something else here about "making the games public is a fair exchange for their use of the medium". Whoa!! Most titled players are completely oblivious of ICS let alone the Internet. If a match between titled players occurs its because it was formed at the invitation/behest of someone knowledgable of or affiliated with ICS. Given these circumstances the players have absolutely no objections to making their games "public", besides they're usually in the public eye anyway. But what on earth has this got to do with logging all games and making them available to anyone? There is no analogy or connection here, we're comparing apples and oranges. I think the issue of "use of the medium" needs to be elaborated on. OTB tournament organizers have a right to claim the score sheets on which game scores are recorded if they provided these score sheets. Somehow I think this worked its way into the present ICS policy as a justification. It is not because: what is being provided is the playing site and the means for players to play each other. The recording of games played is completely secondary to the games themselves. But even if you accept this justification there is yet another flaw. Just as organizers are within their rights to collect game scores recorded on provided scoresheets, players are within their rights to use their own scoresheets for which they are under no obligation to submit. So as ICS is concerned, let me log my games locally without having ICS record them! Last but not least, I've been repeatedly reminded this is all "just for fun". I would like to think so, but with this new policy aren't we violating a classical dictum of speed chess, "never analyze a speed game" ? If it's "just for fun" we hardly need records of speed games. Those who want them can log games on their local system. Your OMOV ratings junkie, Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Ky Macpherson Jul 5 1994, 2:53 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: km12686@eehpx43 (Ky Macpherson) - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Jul 1994 21:36:14 GMT Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 2:36 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I like the new feature, for several reasons. The most obvious is the ability to analyze a game I just lost, and figure out exactly where I went wrong ( oh, I see ... it was when I blundered the *QUEEN* ) Sometimes it may be pointless to analyze a speed game, but ICS is not solely for speed games. I also like to play through games of stronger players, and I notice a lot of other players doing the same thing. There are lots of benefits to this, like watching how a strong player handles a certain opening. The new ECO opening classifications in the game histories are great for this. Also, some recent GM games are available for analysis this way. The fundamental error I see in your argument is that you seem to think that you have a right to play on ICS. I can understand that a player who earns a living playing chess might not want future opponents to have the opportunity to scrutinize his or her games. In this case you can either play on ICS anonymously, as at least one very stong player is doing, or you can simply refuse to play on ICS. If you are concerned about the security of your game scores, having them public seems like the best option. If you are accusing Darooha of some wrongdoing, he certainly stands to gain more by disallowing public access to your game scores, and then SELLING them to your future opponents! :) Ky ICS's --> Slim Kevin N. Leeds Jul 5 1994, 6:02 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: gt20...@prism.gatech.edu (Kevin N. Leeds) - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Jul 1994 20:52:14 -0400 Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 5:52 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) writes: >Darooha gave several reasons which I felt were very flimsy ..... ( deleted ) You are forgetting that Darooha is an ICS god! (Being somewhat tongue in cheek here, as he has also been nominated by Nopants for "Geek of the Week" and I do not really want to start a big controversy.) ICS gods NEVER give "flimsy" reasons. >1. Makes ICS more public. > .... This is just common sense > if you're a serious tournament player. .... The way that some high-rated players solve the problems you mention is by logging on to ICS anonymously. By not revealing your identity via your notes or your login name or by conversation, you can avoid having future tournament opponents learn your opening repertoire. I am not sure whether this possibility will satisfy you, but I hope it would answer your main objection. You also mentioned that allowing others to examine your games was "intrusive", and I think this would also be solved (in a sense) by your keeping anonymity. I suppose Darooha could be talked into making some technological fix. But it would detract from the enjoyment of ICS for those players who wish to learn from you. >Your OMOV ratings junkie, >Peter Stein -- Kevin Leeds I'm used to expressing myself clearly and distinctly with such painstaking attention to being unambiguous that people don't understand me. Extracted from a talk.bizarre post attributed to Zed Alan Losoff Jul 5 1994, 9:08 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: a...@MCS.COM (Alan Losoff) - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Jul 1994 22:58:10 -0500 Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 8:58 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, Peter Stein wrote: >I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on >periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature >was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become >aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by >anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to >their games. > ... [long arguement deleted] I was just about agreeing with Pete, until I read: >But even if you accept this justification there is yet another flaw. Just >as organizers are within their rights to collect game scores recorded on >provided scoresheets, players are within their rights to use their own >scoresheets for which they are under no obligation to submit. So as ICS >is concerned, let me log my games locally without having ICS record them! Whoops. This is not quite true, Pete. Players are under obligation to keep score, and the organizer (in this case ICS) owns the scoresheet. Therefore the player is obligated to submit the scoresheet. If you play in the U.S. Open, (as I hope you will) you will be expected to submit your scoresheet which may be published in the daily games bulletin without your permission. You do, as you point out, still have the right to make whatever use you wish of your own copy. Even organizers who do not generally supply duplicate scoresheets often supply them for the upper boards and require their submission. [World Open, for example.] Now requiring and actually getting aren't always the same thing. I know of one GM (actually his father) who tried to get the organizers to pay extra for the scoresheet. He was not successful. On the other hand, Bill Goichberg tells me that collecting scoresheets is often a problem for him. ICS, in this context, is the organizer and has the right to collect and publish scoresheets. In the case of ICS, it also has the absolute ability to enforce this right. So your final arguement convinced me, but it convinced me we (since I was agreeing) were wrong. Alan Losoff, NTD Alan Losoff Jul 5 1994, 9:24 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: a...@MCS.COM (Alan Losoff) - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Jul 1994 23:15:56 -0500 Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 9:15 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse It's uncool to follow up your own post, but I just noticed that I parsed Pete's sentence wrong, so my reply doesn't [quite] make sense. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <2vda4i$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, >Peter Stein wrote: >[stuff deleted] >>But even if you accept this justification there is yet another flaw. Just >>as organizers are within their rights to collect game scores recorded on >>provided scoresheets, players are within their rights to use their own >>scoresheets for which they are under no obligation to submit. So as ICS >>is concerned, let me log my games locally without having ICS record them! >Whoops. This is not quite true, Pete. Players are under obligation to keep >score, and the organizer (in this case ICS) owns the scoresheet. Therefore >the player is obligated to submit the scoresheet. If you play in the U.S. >Open, (as I hope you will) you will be expected to submit your scoresheet >which may be published in the daily games bulletin without your permission. Ok, Pete said you don't have to USE the provided scoresheet, and I replied as though he said you don't have to submit the supplied scoresheet. Actually, the organizer can (according to both FIDE and USCF rules) require you to use and submit the supplied scoresheet. In fact, it's unlikely that any organizer will object to a player using his own scoresheet, except at the top boards. If you use your own scoresheet, fine. If you knock off a GM, or play a particulary exciting game, you will probably be asked to copy the game to a provided scoresheet for the bulletin. This is not usually a problem, because in such cases most players _want_ the game published. But like I said, requiring and getting are not always the same thing. Alan Losoff, NTD My opinions are my own, but anyone wishing to share is welcome to them. William Smithers Jul 5 1994, 10:30 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: billw...@netcom.com (William Smithers) - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 04:54:48 GMT Local: Tues, Jul 5 1994 9:54 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, Peter Stein wrote: >I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on >periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature >was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become >aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by >anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to >their games. >[REMAINDER OF POST DELETED] ========================================================================= I've been very impressed with the expanding number of helpful and useful features brought to us by the ICS folks. And, as the initiator of THE STC BUNCH, I was both impressed and grateful when Tim Mann immediately created a chat channel for our group on ICS. However, and with complete respect for the ICS managers, I must agree with Peter Stein that the ability to capture and recreate the ICS games of OTHER players is a feature that ought to be withdrawn. To be able to capture and replay one's OWN games is a wonderful addition to the ICS facilities; but to be able to look over the shoulder -- uninvited -- of others' private games can have some unfortunate results. One of our members withdrew from THE STC BUNCH because ICS players from his home town -- whom he did or could meet OTB -- were looking up and recording the openings he played. He felt that the only way he could nullify this practice was to change his ICS handle, and leave no record of his Internet address. I don't think what's gained by the new feature is worth this kind of result. Best wishes, -- Bill Smithers ========================================================================= Steven Rix Jul 6 1994, 3:10 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: ste...@chemeng.ed.ac.uk (Steven Rix) - Find messages by this author Date: 6 Jul 1994 10:50:23 +0100 Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 2:50 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) writes: -> -> But even if you accept this justification there is yet another flaw. Just ->as organizers are within their rights to collect game scores recorded on ->provided scoresheets, players are within their rights to use their own ->scoresheets for which they are under no obligation to submit . Actually, no. From the FIDE Laws of Chess, Article 11: 11.1 In the course of play, each player is required to record the game (his own moves and those of his opponent), move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible in the Algebraic Notation, on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition. If the organisers provide a scoresheet, you must use it. You cannot substitute one of your own. The issue of handing in your scoresheet is not covered by the FIDE Laws (hence Kamsky even has some grounds for not submitting his last Olympiad scoresheets). I'd imagine that the organisers make this a condition of play, but this is rarely made clear. The analogy with ICS is that the moves of the game are in effect being recorded, as you play, by the central computer which co-ordinates everything and checks moves for validity. This is the "medium" prescribed for the competition. I sympathise with your complaints, but if you do not like the service the ICS uses, you are perfectly entitled to take your custom elsewhere. Maybe the new FICS suits you better? Otherwise, login as "carrot" or something and avoid giving yourself away... -- Steve Rix (ste...@chemeng.ed.ac.uk) "A morbid, Edinburgh-based Chemical Engineer" - and no misprint! Renato Ghica Jul 6 1994, 7:54 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: g...@fig.citib.com (Renato Ghica) - Find messages by this author Date: 6 Jul 1994 10:43:14 -0400 Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 7:43 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article , billw...@netcom.com (William Smithers) writes: |> - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, |> Peter Stein wrote: |> > |> >I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on |> >periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature |> >was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become |> >aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by |> >anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to |> >their games . |> >[REMAINDER OF POST DELETED] |> |> ========================================================================= |> |> I've been very impressed with the expanding number of helpful and |> useful features brought to us by the ICS folks. And, as the initiator of |> THE STC BUNCH, I was both impressed and grateful when Tim Mann |> immediately created a chat channel for our group on ICS. |> |> However, and with complete respect for the ICS managers, I must agree |> with Peter Stein that the ability to capture and recreate the ICS games of |> OTHER players is a feature that ought to be withdrawn. To be able to |> capture and replay one's OWN games is a wonderful addition to the ICS |> [quack-a-snip!] Well, I'm finally going to jump in the murky waters and enter this thread : I love the new examine mode on ICS - it exists because lots of people asked for it, including some strong players. What could be better than instantly being able to access all miniatures, long endings, combinations when not logged in? The examine mode is our friend! it protects us! it shelters us when are too tired to play and gives us comfort in the energies of others! (without having to be there at the exact same time). Now, the argument that someone can't make their games public "because their opponents book up for them" is completely without merit - we are not talking about Karpovs and Kasparovs and Kortchnois playing for the world championship and springing an innovation on move #27, are we? And if we are, there's nothing that compels them to actually PLAY that move on ICS (pant, pant!); Like a cure for cancer, like fresh idea, everything must be exposed, everything must be in the open, even if one side doesnt want it, because the OTHER side might want it! If neither player wants to have their games analyzed, what do they do currently? Go to a secluded area and analyze/play! what a concept! (quack!) I have never thought for a second about my stored games, or that my (future) opponent may go over them and trap my queen the same way that I trapped my own in game #45, or that I may fall prey to yet another mouse-fehler (slip of the mouse) and lose oceans of materials with a flick of the wrist! Or that he may so obtuse as to think that what I play in a casual cyber-game would be what I would play in a 2 hour game OTB! Chess is too complicated to "prepare" ahead of time against a particular opening - if it was that easy, we'd all be GMs, but then being a GMS would mean being average, and we would have to turn to 30-ply computers again to save us. (pant, pant!) Remember that even Spassky thought he was playing a part in "quantum leap" when he came to play Fischer as black and saw the "d" pawn up 2 squares. -cranium yes, I'm crazy! MUAUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! twinkle, twinkle little wall....How I wonder when you'll fall... QUACK!!! Peter Stein Jul 6 1994, 9:40 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 15:48:33 GMT Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 8:48 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <2vdb5s$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >It's uncool to follow up your own post, but I just noticed that I >parsed Pete's sentence wrong, so my reply doesn't [quite] make sense. >In article <2vda4i$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >>In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, >>Peter Stein wrote: >>[stuff deleted] >>>But even if you accept this justification there is yet another flaw. Just >>>as organizers are within their rights to collect game scores recorded on >>>provided scoresheets, players are within their rights to use their own >>>scoresheets for which they are under no obligation to submit. So as ICS >>>is concerned, let me log my games locally without having ICS record them! >>Whoops. This is not quite true, Pete. Players are under obligation to keep >>score, and the organizer (in this case ICS) owns the scoresheet. Therefore >>the player is obligated to submit the scoresheet. If you play in the U.S. >>Open, (as I hope you will) you will be expected to submit your scoresheet >>which may be published in the daily games bulletin without your permission. >Ok, Pete said you don't have to USE the provided scoresheet, and I replied >as though he said you don't have to submit the supplied scoresheet. >Actually, the organizer can (according to both FIDE and USCF rules) require FIDE yes, USCF not always. Although I do not have a current rule book in front of me, I know that this is a recent development. Was this change introduced in the new edition? I can't see how the USCF could possibly make this rule stick because it is both logically and legally dubious. >you to use and submit the supplied scoresheet. In fact, it's unlikely that >any organizer will object to a player using his own scoresheet, except at >the top boards. If you use your own scoresheet, fine. If you knock off a >GM, or play a particulary exciting game, you will probably be asked to >copy the game to a provided scoresheet for the bulletin. This is not usually >a problem, because in such cases most players _want_ the game published. >But like I said, requiring and getting are not always the same thing. >Alan Losoff, NTD >My opinions are my own, but anyone wishing to share is welcome to them. Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Peter Stein Jul 6 1994, 10:44 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 16:29:24 GMT Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 9:29 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <2vefu2$...@duck.ftn.us-ny.citicorp.com>, - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Renato Ghica wrote: >In article , billw...@netcom.com (William Smithers) writes: >|> In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, >|> Peter Stein wrote: >|> > >|> >I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on >|> >periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature >|> >was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become >|> >aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by >|> >anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to >|> >their games. >|> >[REMAINDER OF POST DELETED] >|> >|> ========================================================================= >|> >|> I've been very impressed with the expanding number of helpful and >|> useful features brought to us by the ICS folks. And, as the initiator of >|> THE STC BUNCH, I was both impressed and grateful when Tim Mann >|> immediately created a chat channel for our group on ICS. >|> >|> However, and with complete respect for the ICS managers, I must agree >|> with Peter Stein that the ability to capture and recreate the ICS games of >|> OTHER players is a feature that ought to be withdrawn. To be able to >|> capture and replay one's OWN games is a wonderful addition to the ICS >|> >[quack-a-snip!] >Well, I'm finally going to jump in the murky waters and enter this >thread : >I love the new examine mode on ICS - it exists because lots of people >asked for it, including some strong players. What could be better than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh yeah? Which ones? The arguments presented so far for preserving anonymity are pretty superficial. I know who most of the top players are, even those who've made feeble attempts to preserve their anonymity. The only obvious exception is Birchbeer who I think is a CAF (I'll let you figure that one out) :-) >instantly being able to access all miniatures, long endings, >combinations when not logged in? > >The examine mode is our friend! it protects us! it shelters us when are >too tired to play and gives us comfort in the energies of others! >(without having to be there at the exact same time). >Now, the argument that someone can't make their games public "because >their opponents book up for them" is completely without merit - we are >not talking about Karpovs and Kasparovs and Kortchnois playing for the >world championship and springing an innovation on move #27, are we? And >if we are, there's nothing that compels them to actually PLAY that move >on ICS (pant, pant!); This is really quite naive. Do you have any idea how frequently I run into ICS'ers? At the Midwest Team I counted no less than 12! Almost every tournament I play in (even one day weekend swisses) has at least one representative, but usually more. Perhaps you don't play in class tournaments, but all it takes is one ICS'er with a database who remembers (or just looks it up) that you always play a particular subvariation. Such a little nuance can mean the difference between winning a prize or going home without one. >Like a cure for cancer, like fresh idea, everything must be exposed, >everything must be in the open, even if one side doesnt want it, because the >OTHER side might want it! >If neither player wants to have their games analyzed, what do they do >currently? Go to a secluded area and analyze/play! what a concept! What secluded area? >(quack!) >I have never thought for a second about my stored games, or that my >(future) opponent may go over them and trap my queen the same way that I >trapped my own in game #45, or that I may fall prey to yet another >mouse-fehler (slip of the mouse) and lose oceans of materials with a >flick of the wrist! Or that he may so obtuse as to think that what I >play in a casual cyber-game would be what I would play in a 2 hour game >OTB! Chess is too complicated to "prepare" ahead of time >against a particular opening - if it was that easy, we'd all be GMs, but So what's your point, Mr. Wizard? This is precisely what GMs do (if they wish to remain GMs). In fact many have gone on record as describing databases as indispensable. Yes, there are strong players who can get away with bullshit openings against the weakos, but that's hardly a rationale for not bothering to fine tune your opening repertoire (against a specific opponent). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >then being a GMS would mean being average, and we would have to turn to >30-ply computers again to save us. >(pant, pant!) >Remember that even Spassky thought he was playing a part in "quantum >leap" when he came to play Fischer as black and saw the "d" pawn up 2 >squares. > >-cranium >yes, I'm crazy! MUAUAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! twinkle, twinkle little wall....How >I wonder when you'll fall... QUACK!!! Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Sigmund Malek Jul 6 1994, 2:12 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: sigm...@lcc1.nsc.com (Sigmund Malek) - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 20:04:41 GMT Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 1:04 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul5.151101.18...@hal.depaul.edu>, Peter Stein wrote: >I haven't been active on ICS for about a year, but have logged on >periodically to chat and observe games. Apparently a new feature >was installed that slipped past me. Only recently did I become >aware of it. Apparently one can now examine the games played by >anyone and players have no way of restricting access of others to >their games. >Darooha gave several reasons which I felt were very flimsy and I >also got the impression that there were other reasons which he >wasn't going to share with me. Anyway the reasons he gave: .................................. ................................... ................................... I think this is crazy. If there was anything that increased my interest in ICS, it was the feature to analyze my game or look at other games that people played. MY OTB rating is 2200+, I don't mind people looking at my games, if there is a "secret" varation that I want to prepare I can always use GENIUS, M chess, Hiarcs etc., Many times there is nobody available to play, so I lookover games until somebody shows up, or analyze a past game. All I can say to people that don't want to share their games is that they don't have to play... Sigmund Alan Losoff Jul 6 1994, 6:21 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: a...@MCS.COM (Alan Losoff) - Find messages by this author Date: 6 Jul 1994 20:10:06 -0500 Local: Wed, Jul 6 1994 6:10 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul6.154833.14...@hal.depaul.edu>, Peter Stein wrote: >In article <2vdb5s$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >>Actually, the organizer can (according to both FIDE and USCF rules) require >FIDE yes, USCF not always. Although I do not have a current rule book in front >of me, I know that this is a recent development. Was this change introduced >in the new edition? I can't see how the USCF could possibly make this rule >stick because it is both logically and legally dubious. page 45 of the current USCF rulebook: 15L. Ownership of scoresheets. The score sheets of all games in a tournament ar the property of the sponsoring organization(s). If the organizer requires that a copy of each game score be submitted by the players, duplicate score sheets must be provided, and players who fail to submit score sheets may be penalized. I don't see what's logically or legally dubious about this? No one is forced to enter a sporting event, but if you do you are agreeing to abide by the rules of the sponsor and/or govering body. I think golfers are also required to submit a scorecard. Bowlers. Probably others. Most organizers don't require it, but the rules allow them to. Anyways, I'd expect ICS to be more in tune with FIDE rules than USCF rules, though neither has any authority over ICS. Alan Losoff, NTD My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to share them with me. Fabian Maeser Jul 7 1994, 2:57 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: Fabian Maeser - Find messages by this author Date: 7 Jul 1994 09:32:20 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 2:32 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul6.162924.14...@hal.depaul.edu> Peter Stein, pst...@falcon.depaul.edu writes: >This is really quite naive. Do you have any idea how frequently I run into ICS'ers? >At the Midwest Team I counted no less than 12! Almost every tournament I play in >(even one day weekend swisses) has at least one representative, but usually more. >Perhaps you don't play in class tournaments, but all it takes is one ICS'er with >a database who remembers (or just looks it up) that you always play a particular >subvariation. Such a little nuance can mean the difference between winning a prize >or going home without one. Nobody forces you to always play a particular subvariation ! ;-) If you do you have to take the risk of running into a well prepared opponent... It is really quite naive to believe that opening preparation is that important (at any amateur-level - you're not a professional I guess). This sounds like you can only win games if you surprise your opponents with rarely played subvariations... febi Jeff Towers Jul 7 1994, 6:12 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: tow...@g7.rmc.ca (Jeff Towers) - Find messages by this author Date: 7 Jul 1994 12:53:01 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 5:53 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Peter Stein (pst...@falcon.depaul.edu) wrote: deleted material to the effect that games should not be public because opponents can use the information. > Your OMOV ratings junkie, > Peter Stein > pst...@falcon.depaul.edu I am in favor of the observe feature. I believe the game is "owned" originally by four parties: white, black, tournament sponsor, and all observers. Each party is free to do with their record of the game score as they see fit, including make it public. This conforms to the practice of most chess clubs. Grandmaster's game collections are available; preparation at the highest levels must involve studying opponents games. By including the observe feature, they have taken the non-chess work out of chess study for those who want to exploit it. Jeff Peter Stein Jul 7 1994, 9:45 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 15:50:14 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 8:50 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <2vfkle$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >In article <1994Jul6.154833.14...@hal.depaul.edu>, >Peter Stein wrote: >>In article <2vdb5s$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >>>Actually, the organizer can (according to both FIDE and USCF rules) require >>FIDE yes, USCF not always. Although I do not have a current rule book in front >>of me, I know that this is a recent development. Was this change introduced >>in the new edition? I can't see how the USCF could possibly make this rule >>stick because it is both logically and legally dubious. >page 45 of the current USCF rulebook: >15L. Ownership of scoresheets. The score sheets of all games in a >tournament ar the property of the sponsoring organization(s). If the >organizer requires that a copy of each game score be submitted by the >players, duplicate score sheets must be provided, and players who fail >to submit score sheets may be penalized. >I don't see what's logically or legally dubious about this? No one is Simple, if I bring my own scoresheet (i.e. my property) it is mine to do with as I wish. I could crumple it up or use it for toilet paper if wanted to since it is my property. The keeping of "score" is purely secondary to the game itself. The only time the game score is required is when it needs to be examined in order to enforce the rules of chess. For reporting the outcome marking the pairing sheet or turning in a results card will do. >forced to enter a sporting event, but if you do you are agreeing to abide >by the rules of the sponsor and/or govering body. I think golfers are Would chess change somehow because of the score keeping issue? Of course not, because the game itself is unaffected. We're only talking about a secondary issue. As for abiding by the rules of the governing body, I completely agree with this, however, nothings to keep the governing body from putting silly or unjust rules into effect which eventually get repealed. >also required to submit a scorecard. Bowlers. Probably others. We're comparing apples and oranges. For the things you mention the score is essential to reporting the result, it in fact constitutes the result. In chess it is not neccessary to report every move of the game in order to report the outcome. >Most organizers don't require it, but the rules allow them to. I'm happy to say that the majority of organizers I've encountered are very reasonable and let their participants play without any distractions. >Anyways, I'd expect ICS to be more in tune with FIDE rules than USCF >rules, though neither has any authority over ICS. Any set of rules is ok by me provided it's sensible, fair, and consistently enforced. >Alan Losoff, NTD >My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to share them with me. Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Peter Stein Jul 7 1994, 10:28 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 16:05:44 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 9:05 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <2vgi34$...@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, Fabian Maeser wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >In article <1994Jul6.162924.14...@hal.depaul.edu> Peter Stein, >pst...@falcon.depaul.edu writes: >>This is really quite naive. Do you have any idea how frequently I run >into ICS'ers? >>At the Midwest Team I counted no less than 12! Almost every tournament I >play in >>(even one day weekend swisses) has at least one representative, but >usually more. >>Perhaps you don't play in class tournaments, but all it takes is one >ICS'er with >>a database who remembers (or just looks it up) that you always play a >particular >>subvariation. Such a little nuance can mean the difference between >winning a prize >>or going home without one. >Nobody forces you to always play a particular subvariation ! ;-) >If you do you have to take the risk of running into a well prepared >opponent... >It is really quite naive to believe that opening preparation is that >important (at any amateur-level - you're not a professional I guess). >This sounds like you can only win games if you surprise your opponents >with rarely played subvariations... No, what it does mean is that nowadays players at all levels have better opening knowledge than in the past. In order to keep pace an individual's knowledge must progress accordingly. It has also occured to me that you European folks may be unfamiliar with the quantity of "class" (category) events that are held here in the US. If a player finds himself/herself competing for class prizes for some time they tend to encounter the same competitors from event to event until someone eventually moves up or drops to the next class. It has gotten to the point where I can predict with great certainty who my competition will be at big money class events (i.e. the Goichberg affairs). My competitors try to find out what I play and I what they play. It's just par for the course. >febi Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Peter Stein Jul 7 1994, 10:32 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 16:20:36 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 9:20 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <2vgtrd$...@cs6.rmc.ca>, Jeff Towers wrote: >Peter Stein (pst...@falcon.depaul.edu) wrote: >deleted material to the effect that games should not >be public because opponents can use the information. >> Your OMOV ratings junkie, >> Peter Stein >> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu >I am in favor of the observe feature. I believe the game >is "owned" originally by four parties: white, black, tournament >sponsor, and all observers. Each party is free to do with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >their record of the game score as they see fit, including ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >make it public. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No they are not. That's precisely my point. The players have absolutely no element of choice (other than simply not playing anymore) for maintaining any level of privacy. What is it that you dont understand? >This conforms to the practice of most chess clubs. This is a completely groundless assertion. What is your sample size? I've played at many clubs in the US and a couple in Europe as well. At no time were participants in an event compelled to turn in score sheets. >Grandmaster's game collections are available; >preparation at the highest levels must involve studying >opponents games. By including the observe feature, they >have taken the non-chess work out of chess study for those >who want to exploit it. >Jeff Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Jeff Towers Jul 7 1994, 1:19 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: tow...@g7.rmc.ca (Jeff Towers) - Find messages by this author Date: 7 Jul 1994 19:52:01 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 12:52 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse My point is that all players are free to do with *their* record as they please. White does not get to tell Black what Black is allowed to do with the game record. White does not dictate what any of the parties, or anyone privy to the game score, can do with it. Is your position that you have a right to privacy that overrides other's freedom of expression? What I am getting at is that in no chess club would white be allowed to stand up and demand of all observers that the moves be held in secrecy. I suspect we are both uncomfortable with the idea of being forced to turn in one's game score (which is not common practice but appears to be in the books). My discomfort goes away when the collected games are freely available to all. On another note, I'm not sure how your repertoire getting out would really hurt you. If they out-repertoire you, haven't they just given you a lesson worth more than a tournament point. Also, can't you counter-counter-repertoire them. Jeff - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter Stein (pst...@falcon.depaul.edu) wrote: > In article <2vgtrd$...@cs6.rmc.ca>, Jeff Towers wrote: > >Peter Stein (pst...@falcon.depaul.edu) wrote: > >deleted material to the effect that games should not > >be public because opponents can use the information. > >> Your OMOV ratings junkie, > >> Peter Stein > >> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu > >I am in favor of the observe feature. I believe the game > >is "owned" originally by four parties: white, black, tournament > >sponsor, and all observers. Each party is free to do with > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >their record of the game score as they see fit, including > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >make it public. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > No they are not. That's precisely my point. The players have > absolutely no element of choice (other than simply not > playing anymore) for maintaining any level of privacy. > What is it that you dont understand? > >This conforms to the practice of most chess clubs. > This is a completely groundless assertion. What is your sample size? > I've played at many clubs in the US and a couple in Europe as well. > At no time were participants in an event compelled to turn in score > sheets. > Peter Stein > pst...@falcon.depaul.edu Ashish Mukharji Jul 7 1994, 2:44 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: ash...@tfs.com (Ashish Mukharji) - Find messages by this author Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 20:46:47 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 1:46 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Someone writes: >No, what it does mean is that nowadays players at all levels have better >opening knowledge than in the past. In order to keep pace an individual's >knowledge must progress accordingly. >It has also occured to me that you European folks may be unfamiliar with >the quantity of "class" (category) events that are held here in the US. >If a player finds himself/herself competing for class prizes for some time >they tend to encounter the same competitors from event to event until >someone eventually moves up or drops to the next class. It has gotten to >the point where I can predict with great certainty who my competition will >be at big money class events (i.e. the Goichberg affairs). My competitors >try to find out what I play and I what they play. It's just par for the >course. Well, at least we know where we disagree. It's clear to *me*, and to many strong players I've asked, that amateur players in the US (I'm one), spend far too much effort memorizing opening lines, at the expense of the rest of their game. Everyone knows class players who don't know Lucena from Philidor, but have the main line of the Dragon (or whatever) memorized twenty moves deep. I know the lure of shiny new opening books is hard to resist - but they're not really about playing chess. If these people who are complaining about their "secrets" being unveiled would try to do a problem out of _Encylopedia of Chess Middlegames_, or any of the excellent ending books around, they'd realize where they need to spend their time. (And if non-masters are worrying about how to win huge $$ at the World Open - you get no sympathy from me. Heck, I'd be *embarrassed* to win that kind of money - for being the "best fish who wasn't good enough to play with the big guys." If your goal is to make money, there are better ways to do it than by playing chess.) IMHO, of course. ;-) >Peter Stein >pst...@falcon.depaul.edu -ashish -- Ashish Mukharji When I race my mind is full of doubts. ash...@tfs.COM Who will come in second? Who will come in third? TFS, Oakland Ca - Noureddine Morceli Alan Losoff Jul 7 1994, 3:32 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: a...@MCS.COM (Alan Losoff) - Find messages by this author Date: 7 Jul 1994 17:23:43 -0500 Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 3:23 pm Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article <1994Jul7.155014....@hal.depaul.edu>, - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Peter Stein wrote: >In article <2vfkle$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >>In article <1994Jul6.154833.14...@hal.depaul.edu>, >>Peter Stein wrote: >>>In article <2vdb5s$...@mercury.mcs.com>, Alan Losoff wrote: >>>>Actually, the organizer can (according to both FIDE and USCF rules) require >>>FIDE yes, USCF not always. Although I do not have a current rule book in front >>>of me, I know that this is a recent development. Was this change introduced >>>in the new edition? I can't see how the USCF could possibly make this rule >>>stick because it is both logically and legally dubious. >>page 45 of the current USCF rulebook: >>15L. Ownership of scoresheets. The score sheets of all games in a >>tournament ar the property of the sponsoring organization(s). If the >>organizer requires that a copy of each game score be submitted by the >>players, duplicate score sheets must be provided, and players who fail >>to submit score sheets may be penalized. >>I don't see what's logically or legally dubious about this? No one is >Simple, if I bring my own scoresheet (i.e. my property) it is mine to do >with as I wish. I could crumple it up or use it for toilet paper if wanted >to since it is my property. Huh? I think now Pete's misreading. The rule I quoted has nothing to do with your own scoresheet. It says the organizer may require you to use the provided one. If you do (either by choice or requirement) it's not yours. It also says you may be penalized for failing to submit the scoresheet. Now you may feel the scoresheet is secondary to the game (and I'd agree), but whoever wrote that rule feels that secondary or not, it's important enough to be required, and you can be penalized for failure to submit one. (I also agree with him). >>Most organizers don't require it, but the rules allow them to. >I'm happy to say that the majority of organizers I've encountered are very >reasonable and let their participants play without any distractions. As are most players. I can't ever recall an organizer refusing to allow a player to use his own scorebook nor a player refusing to transcribe from the scorebook to the "official" scoresheet when asked. [It's probalby happened, but rarely] >>Anyways, I'd expect ICS to be more in tune with FIDE rules than USCF >>rules, though neither has any authority over ICS. >Any set of rules is ok by me provided it's sensible, fair, and consistently >enforced. Alan Losoff, NTD My opinions are my own, but feel free to share them. Steve Mayer Jul 7 1994, 7:42 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: sma...@netcom.com (Steve Mayer) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 01:36:30 GMT Local: Thurs, Jul 7 1994 6:36 pm Subject: "Ill Buy Your Scoresheet" (was New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Jeff Towers (tow...@g7.rmc.ca) wrote: : My point is that all players are free to do with *their* record : as they please. White does not get to tell Black what Black is : allowed to do with the game record. White does not dictate : what any of the parties, or anyone privy to the game score, : can do with it . That reminds me of something that once happened to the Washington, D.C. master Ken Clayton. Ken played an American GM in an international run by Bill Goichberg. Clayton played well, but ended up losing in a game that featured a key line in the GM's repertoire. The bulletin editor offered a deal where anyone turning in a score would get a free copy of the bulletin; anyone else would have to pay 25 cents. The GM gave Clayton a quarter, and said, "This is for the bulletin. Please don't submit the game." And Clayton didn't. Steve "Will sell scores of losses for food" Mayer Peter Stein Jul 8 1994, 9:26 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 15:46:32 GMT Local: Fri, Jul 8 1994 8:46 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article , Ashish Mukharji wrote: >Someone writes: >>No, what it does mean is that nowadays players at all levels have better >>opening knowledge than in the past. In order to keep pace an individual's >>knowledge must progress accordingly. >>It has also occured to me that you European folks may be unfamiliar with >>the quantity of "class" (category) events that are held here in the US. >>If a player finds himself/herself competing for class prizes for some time >>they tend to encounter the same competitors from event to event until >>someone eventually moves up or drops to the next class. It has gotten to >>the point where I can predict with great certainty who my competition will >>be at big money class events (i.e. the Goichberg affairs). My competitors >>try to find out what I play and I what they play. It's just par for the >>course. >Well, at least we know where we disagree. It's clear to *me*, and to >many strong players I've asked, that amateur players in the US (I'm >one), spend far too much effort memorizing opening lines, at the >expense of the rest of their game. Everyone knows class players who >don't know Lucena from Philidor, but have the main line of the Dragon >(or whatever) memorized twenty moves deep. Whoa! At no time did I suggest that memorizing lines is a substitute for being a well rounded player. In fact if you would have followed the discussion thread on ratings you would have noticed me stating the importance of being well rounded and my observation that today's players may not equal their peers of twenty years ago with the exception of openings knowledge. I suspect we do not disagree here. However, the need to be proficient in all phases of the game shouldn't cause any one phase to be neglected. Everyone is simply better versed in openings these days. Please don't equate the attempt to meet this challenge with "memorizing lines". I have suspicions about the masters who keep harping about this point. It may be quite unpleasant for them to overcome opening disadvantages incurred against an expert opponent who "memorized lines". In fact I've witnessed some amusing games where strong area masters went to great extremes to take their opening specialist opponent out of their book. >I know the lure of shiny new opening books is hard to resist - but >they're not really about playing chess. If these people who are >complaining about their "secrets" being unveiled would try to do a >problem out of _Encylopedia of Chess Middlegames_, or any of the >excellent ending books around, they'd realize where they need to spend >their time. This may be true for some, but not all. Being good in different phases does not have to be mutually exclusive. >(And if non-masters are worrying about how to win huge $$ at the World >Open - you get no sympathy from me. Heck, I'd be *embarrassed* to win >that kind of money - for being the "best fish who wasn't good enough >to play with the big guys." If your goal is to make money, there are >better ways to do it than by playing chess.) I know many masters who at one time were the 2199 "best fish who wasn't good enough to play with the big guys." Not everyone makes a career out of class prizes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your best effort while in that class. >IMHO, of course. ;-) >-ashish >-- >Ashish Mukharji When I race my mind is full of doubts. >ash...@tfs.COM Who will come in second? Who will come in third? >TFS, Oakland Ca - Noureddine Morceli Peter Stein pst...@falcon.depaul.edu jan t pajak Jul 8 1994, 10:05 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: jpa...@hookup.net (jan t pajak) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 16:50:48 GMT Local: Fri, Jul 8 1994 9:50 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I love the new ICS observe/examine policy. I hate the anonymity that some players want but I respect their "desire" to do so. If both players want to make a game anonymous why should they not be allowed to play an off-the record game? Most of the games played on ICS are strictly player to player challenges and not tournament games that require keeping of scores. Allowing anonymous games I dont think would go against general ICS principles. Implementing anonymity is extra work for the programmers however, and Im sure that they all have higher priorities to implement. . Brent Edwards Jul 8 1994, 11:30 am show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: bedwa...@nextear.psych.umn.edu (Brent Edwards) - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 17:45:18 GMT Local: Fri, Jul 8 1994 10:45 am Subject: Re: New ICS policy Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article jpa...@hookup.net (jan t pajak) writes: > I love the new ICS observe/examine policy. > I hate the anonymity that some players want > but I respect their "desire" to do so. > If both players want to make a game anonymous > why should they not be allowed to play an off-the record game? > Most of the games played on ICS are strictly player to player challenges > and not tournament games that require keeping of scores. > Allowing anonymous games I dont think would go against general ICS principles . How about this: Player A, who doesn't mind people examining his games, plays Player B who does mind. Player B has a flag set such that no one can examine games by using his name as an "examine" parameter, while Player A has his flag set so that his name can be used as an "examine" parameter. So, the AvsB game can be examined by anyone using "examine PlayerA #" but not "examine PlayerB #". Player B is satisfied since it would be difficult for someone to track down B's other games since they would have to find his games in his opponents' games directories, and if his opponents have nothing against someone looking at their game with Player B, then B can't object. Of course, this flag makes ICS that much more complicated and requires more programming. --Brent James Aspnes Jul 8 1994, 1:20 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.games.chess From: aspnes-ja...@cs.yale.edu (James Aspnes) - Find messages by this author Date: 8 Jul 1994 15:57:28 -0400 Local: Fri, Jul 8 1994 12:57 pm Subject: restricting examine is not enough (was Re: New ICS policy) Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse In article , Brent Edwards wrote: >How about this: >Player A, who doesn't mind people examining his games, plays Player B who >does mind. Player B has a flag set such that no one can examine games by >using his name as an "examine" parameter, while Player A has his flag set >so that his name can be used as an "examine" parameter... I have lying around some perl code that connects up to the ICS and snarfs the moves of all games it sees (using mailoldmoves at present, although it could be modified without too much effort to use observe). Given the possibility of such daemons, the only way that you will be able to prevent someone from catching the moves from all of your games is to be able to block any observation of any kind by third parties. I suspect that it is rather unlikely that the AICS at least will be modified to allow such completely secret games, and I'm not sure why anybody who wanted to play a secret game would be using an ICS in the first place.