"An Open Letter to Cock de Gorter and the CSVN Board"

[Uly]

Yeah, probably the part when Thorsten says "and i experienced how harvey williamson behaved when he has the power to ban or delete or censor other people. thats why i do not post in the hiarcs forum anymore." should have flashbacks of you kicking me out of Hiarcs forum after all the unappreciated work I did there.

And all because of nicks I used at other forums you never asked me about. That's why I believe you're again blowing something small out of proportions.

With Harvey there's no "this is all obviously not about the pretend offence of the cracked version but all about something else", what you see is what you get, a detail is a huge deal to him.

[kingliveson]

ah I knew you would turn up if a roll in a film was mentioned.

Sign me up for the Julian Assange type of role as I have more chat logs, screen shots, and emails yet to be published. Though we can remove the "sex by surprise" portion.

Here we see PlayChess sysops Harvey and 2 others (Rob and Holger) at the beginning of another intimidating session which after taunting a member, ended up muting and banning his account.

[Harvey Williamson]

Yeah, probably the part when Thorsten says "and i experienced how harvey williamson behaved when he has the power to ban or delete or censor other people. thats why i do not post in the hiarcs forum anymore." should have flashbacks of you kicking me out of Hiarcs forum after all the unappreciated work I did there.

And all because of nicks I used at other forums you never asked me about. That's why I believe you're again blowing something small out of proportions.

With Harvey there's no "this is all obviously not about the pretend offence of the cracked version but all about something else", what you see is what you get, a detail is a huge deal to him.

Believe what you like. The one thing 99% posting in this thread has in common is they are making up the facts to fit their own agenda. At least 99% posting in the real thread on the Hiarcs forum are people who play in or have a genuine interest in the tournament and not part of this cesspit.

You are here now crying over spilt milk. You have since lost your job on the Rybka forum to. Now you will tell me you jumped and were not pushed. OK if that is what you say but you will join with these guys making accusations that even Cock de Gorter would say are untrue. Now who lnows what happened that night besides Cock and me? (and in the movie version Chris whittington Thorsten and you). Cock and I have slightly different versions but I can guarantee neither of us would entertain the crap that has been posted here.

Really does sound like a bad movie.

ah I knew you would turn up if a roll in a film was mentioned.

Sign me up for the Julian Assange type of role as I have more chat logs, screen shots, and emails yet to be published. Though we can remove the "sex by surprise portion."

Here we see Harvey and 2 other sysop(Rob and Holger) at beginning of an intimidating session which after taunting a member, ended up muting and banning his account.

got you and frayer as stunt doubles.

[BB+]

I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter.

I was wondering if we'd ever get around to this, if "truth comes by conflict", then perhaps we are getting somewhere...

[...] is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use).

From a criminal legal standpoint, I don't think "use" has anything to do with theft -- possession of said merchandise is already sufficient (especially with "cracked" software). About the best Cock could hope for is an ersatz "necessity" defence, e.g. "Your barn was on fire, so I herded your cows into mine" -- this is still legally "theft", though the criminal content is mitigated (the analogy here also seems rather strained to me). The second legal aspect is civil; for instance, I still have to return your cows in due time. In the case of hand, this seemed to have been remedied by future events, though now the claim is that said resolution was not reached in good faith.

[Harvey Williamson]

I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter.

I was wondering if we'd ever get around to this, if "truth comes by conflict", then perhaps we are getting somewhere...

Had long chats with Ed since that post. He is a nice guy. Willing to see both sides.

[BB+]

If you don't know what the CSS Masters is (or when it took place), there's a whole subforum (in German) about it
http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/ ... w.pl?bid=6
The entry list seems to have been finalised in early November with play starting Nov 19 (as one example, in October someone was debating of entering with Komodo, but it was unclear whether an MP version would be available by that date). Deep Junior 12 was released in late October (the 29th?), though the ChessBase version was only publicised on Dec 21. A post from Cock (Nov 6) regarding the Junior version: http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/ ... 9#pid32569

[Hood]

Sure Hetman see you there currently winning my semi final of the ICCF World Correspondence Championship. Would love to play you in the next round if you also win a semi final this year. (Providing i stay in 1st place of course)

It is nth to be proud Will the Scarlett, it is due to your monster machine. It is very probable that joined forces of Sherwood can face your machine. I think that many people can rent machine time and software for free to allow analysis the games vs you.

Hood

[Harvey Williamson]

Sure Hetman see you there currently winning my semi final of the ICCF World Correspondence Championship. Would love to play you in the next round if you also win a semi final this year. (Providing i stay in 1st place of course)

It is nth to be proud Will the Scarlett, it is due to your monster machine. It is very probable that joined forces of Sherwood can face your machine. I think that many people can rent machine time and software for free to allow analysis the games vs you.

Hood

If you hire the Rybka Cluster for a year I will gladly play you a correspondence game.

[Chris Whittington]

I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter.

I was wondering if we'd ever get around to this, if "truth comes by conflict", then perhaps we are getting somewhere...

[...] is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use).

From a criminal legal standpoint, I don't think "use" has anything to do with theft -- possession of said merchandise is already sufficient (especially with "cracked" software). About the best Cock could hope for is an ersatz "necessity" defence, e.g. "Your barn was on fire, so I herded your cows into mine" -- this is still legally "theft", though the criminal content is mitigated (the analogy here also seems rather strained to me). The second legal aspect is civil; for instance, I still have to return your cows in due time. In the case of hand, this seemed to have been remedied by future events, though now the claim is that said resolution was not reached in good faith.

the word thief and/or the word stealing is not appropriate for this situation. Possession is not enough. From wiki with acknowledgement of my laziness:

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.

There has to be *intent* to deprive the copyright owner on the part of the "thief". C de G's intent was to act for the benefit of the copyright owner.

Analogous situation: A and B go to a restaurant. A leaves for the airport and forgets his coat. B leaves, notices the coat and brings it with him, for he is also due to travel by air to see A again the next day. B is acting for and on behalf of A and in A's interests, even though A has not actually asked him to do so.

Junior was entered into CSS Masters, whether by the copyright holder or by someone else is not clear, but we can assume that C de G was supposed to be operating or facilitating Junior. There's no valid copy of Junior, so, rather than allow Junior to lose the first round, C de G, acting in the interests of the copyright owner, uses a copy, figuring that was the better of some bad alternatives, without intention to deprive anybody of anything, and with clear good intention. Not only does he cease using the copy when he receives the original but he subsequently informs an agent of the copyright holder what he has done.

In no way does this fall into the category of theft, because there was no intention to deprive, and a clear intention to be a good helper, followed by a full and voluntary declaration.

Oner can clearly see how offended C de G would be by comments variously described by HW as "appalled by his actions", "using a cracked version", "brought his office into disrepute", "steals a product I am involved in selling" in particular those in front of his wife and then subsequently made public by HW.

There was NO INTENT TO DEPRIVE on the part of C de G, and therefore no theft. False allegations of "stealing" and "theft" are libellous.

We can also assume from Ed's report of his conversation with C de G ......

"I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter. He said he told you on beforehand, one day before the tournament started while waiting for his free-copy from ChessBase. This during a dinner you had with Cock and his wife. And you went mad and misbehaved. Cock's wife upset.

Cock wanted to do Amir a favour, so he told you, honestly. Not expecting you to misbehave and then start a public war quoting private email and all of that."

..... that HW was oblivious to the "intent" condition, even when C de G made it clear that his intentions were good, that he used his judgement to act on behalf of the copyright holder, in the copyright holders interest.

Further, if Junior was entered by the copyright holder or his representative and C de G was given the task of operating, then C de G is acting as AGENT of the copyright holder or his representative and is even more justified in using his judgement in the copyright holder's interests.

[Harvey Williamson]

I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter.

I was wondering if we'd ever get around to this, if "truth comes by conflict", then perhaps we are getting somewhere...

[...] is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use).

From a criminal legal standpoint, I don't think "use" has anything to do with theft -- possession of said merchandise is already sufficient (especially with "cracked" software). About the best Cock could hope for is an ersatz "necessity" defence, e.g. "Your barn was on fire, so I herded your cows into mine" -- this is still legally "theft", though the criminal content is mitigated (the analogy here also seems rather strained to me). The second legal aspect is civil; for instance, I still have to return your cows in due time. In the case of hand, this seemed to have been remedied by future events, though now the claim is that said resolution was not reached in good faith.

the word thief and/or the word stealing is not appropriate for this situation. Possession is not enough. From wiki with acknowledgement of my laziness:

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.

There has to be *intent* to deprive the copyright owner on the part of the "thief". C de G's intent was to act for the benefit of the copyright owner.

Analogous situation: A and B go to a restaurant. A leaves for the airport and forgets his coat. B leaves, notices the coat and brings it with him, for he is also due to travel by air to see A again the next day. B is acting for and on behalf of A and in A's interests, even though A has not actually asked him to do so.

Junior was entered into CSS Masters, whether by the copyright holder or by someone else is not clear, but we can assume that C de G was supposed to be operating or facilitating Junior. There's no valid copy of Junior, so, rather than allow Junior to lose the first round, C de G, acting in the interests of the copyright owner, uses a copy, figuring that was the better of some bad alternatives, without intention to deprive anybody of anything, and with clear good intention. Not only does he cease using the copy when he receives the original but he subsequently informs an agent of the copyright holder what he has done.

In no way does this fall into the category of theft, because there was no intention to deprive, and a clear intention to be a good helper, followed by a full and voluntary declaration.

Oner can clearly see how offended C de G would be by comments variously described by HW as "appalled by his actions", "using a cracked version", "brought his office into disrepute", "steals a product I am involved in selling" in particular those in front of his wife and then subsequently made public by HW.

There was NO INTENT TO DEPRIVE on the part of C de G, and therefore no theft. False allegations of "stealing" and "theft" are libellous.

We can also assume from Ed's report of his conversation with C de G ......

"I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter. He said he told you on beforehand, one day before the tournament started while waiting for his free-copy from ChessBase. This during a dinner you had with Cock and his wife. And you went mad and misbehaved. Cock's wife upset.

Cock wanted to do Amir a favour, so he told you, honestly. Not expecting you to misbehave and then start a public war quoting private email and all of that."

..... that HW was oblivious to the "intent" condition, even when C de G made it clear that his intentions were good, that he used his judgement to act on behalf of the copyright holder, in the copyright holders interest.

Further, if Junior was entered by the copyright holder or his representative and C de G was given the task of operating, then C de G is acting as AGENT of the copyright holder or his representative and is even more justified in using his judgement in the copyright holder's interests.

Talking through your ass as usual no public war was started until after he got his free legal version and after that he then banned me. He entered the tournament on the 6th December that gave him 2 weeks to ask Mark or Amir for a free copy before round 1. CB did not release until weeks after the tournament started.