This is getting to be like a cancer and starting to disrupt our group and I would like the chance to respond to various charges Kant has given against me.

There are many so I cannot give them in order.

He recently said on the public forum that I told him the reason we lost the one game had to do with a couple of cheaters who were on the other team. This was deleted.

1. We should NEVER post anything in our public forum even implying the other team cheated. I do not even think the other team cheated as a whole--just a couple of members and I am not about to say they cheated. It is irresponsible to imply in a public forum that some other team we played against cheated.

I did not tell Kant that we lost because the other team cheated but yet he tries to say I did tell him this. I related the one incident but have never said we lost because of the incident.

In fact I have made public statements to the team that it was my fault that we lost. I related how I was confused over this particular variation of the Ponziani and I led the team astray. We lost because of my poor guidance in this case not because either the other team cheated or there were two players on the other team who cheated.

Earlier in a post deleted by Law Kant was saying how he did not understand how we "always" found the very best move and he wanted the super computers to determine if we made moves similar to the computer or not. This indirectly implies we are cheating or more directly he thinks I am cheating because in his own mimd he believes all the moves are my doing. maybe 80% are my doing but not all. The post has been deleted.

We could not be making "always" the very best moves as we have lost some games. Not only that since I was preparing something for DJ on our Pirates game i decided to look at the very early opening where we had so much trouble in deciding a move. After putting the very early opening on a computer this is what I found.

3. c3 f5 4. d4 d6 5. exf5 Nf6 and here we had one heck of a time deciding on the best move and decided 6. Bb5

We missed a very powerful move given by my computer

6. g4!! gives us a very big advantage. The point is the pawn on g4 cannot be taken because of the follow up of d5 and then Qa4+

Later in the same game we come to our 13th move. Many were suggesting 13. Bc4 and in fact my conputer says it is the best move. However in truth 13. a4!! is the very best move and the computer does not even look at this move as far as I can tell. So we have a game where we are in book and out of book and we miss a knock out move on the 6th move and then I will bet the super computer will not find the 13. a4 move as it requiress vision far ahead in the game too far...

Also remember the very nice mate in two in our one game?

We had already started voting on another move and Breaker out of 50 some players in Ponziani Power found this very nice two move mate. No other player found it.

Why? Because we are not using computer help! A computer would find the move in less than one tenth of a second.

If his remarks were not deleted it is obvious he was trying to show that we were making fantastic moves as far as he could tell and wanted to compare our moves to the moves of a very good computer.

Ponziani Power Discussion Group

Super Admins