PDA

View Full Version : FIDE handbook link broken?



ursogr8
30-09-2004, 02:14 PM
One would have thought an apparently smart fellow like you would have thought to check out the FIDE web site first. :doh:



Bill
Another score against you.
I tried both the link from the ACF site and a FIDE.com link I had stored in my favourites. Both gave a server not found full screen from my browser. In order to continue the posting-discussion I was having I asked for help from my BB mates.
Now I find that one of them jumps to false conclusions when help is asked for.

starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 02:26 PM
Bill
Another score against you.
I think not. It is more a score against you.


I tried both the link from the ACF site and a FIDE.com link I had stored in my favourites. Both gave a server not found full screen from my browser. In order to continue the posting-discussion I was having I asked for help from my BB mates.
You have never heard of google? :hmm:


Now I find that one of them jumps to false conclusions when help is asked for.
You gave no indication that you had attempted to locate the rules especially on the FIDE site.
In fact you asked your question at 8.19. Barry responded 7 minutes later at 8.26 as did gg 8 minutes after your question at 8.27 and both provided a url jn the FIDE web site.
You then apparently quoted from the rules in a post 8 minutes later at 8.36 a total of 17 minutes from your first post asking for a rules reference.

How amazing and fortunate for you that the FIDE web site was now apparently working once again. :whistle:

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 02:53 PM
I think not. It is more a score against you.


You have never heard of google? :hmm:

So now the rule is that we have to navigate to knowledge in your prescribed way?
Bill, I got the knowledge because Baz and gg'' helped me. They often do.



You gave no indication that you had attempted to locate the rules especially on the FIDE site.

So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?



In fact you asked your question at 8.19. Barry responded 7 minutes later at 8.26 as did gg 8 minutes after your question at 8.27 and both provided a url jn the FIDE web site.

Yes Bill, this is what mates do; they help.



You then apparently quoted from the rules in a post 8 minutes later at 8.36 a total of 17 minutes from your first post asking for a rules reference.

Yes I did because I was on the thought pattern that Barry stated with his 'compliance becomes a natural'. What I was looking for were a couple of long-standing rules that compliance has not become the norm. I found 3. You have already responded on these. I then reflected and have found what I was looking for in Barry's post about GONG disturbances. I posted on this and am waiting for Barry.

So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?


How amazing and fortunate for you that the FIDE web site was now apparently working once again. :whistle:

Not amazing to me Bill. I was on a dial-up at home. The URL I was trying which was like FIDE.com was short. The URL that Barry gave was (now obvious to me) the same site but some drill-down page. Why did Baz's work. Search me. I can't even display Jeos board facility since I took advice and turned off some display functions. Web-sites often don't display for me. Ask Jeo; he has given me a special URL to get to chesschat as all the normal ones don't work
(Before you ask....Windows95...IE5...56k).

So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?


starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 03:05 PM
So now the rule is that we have to navigate to knowledge in your prescribed way?
I'm just suggesting for a supposed smart person you gave no evidence you had in fact used your brain.

Bill, I got the knowledge because Baz and gg'' helped me. They often do.
They also often help those who cannot be bothered to help themselves.
There was no way to determine what category you fell into.


So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?
You gave no indication you had tried.
You gave no indication you had a problem in trying to find them.
So my conculsion is that it is amazingly co-incidental that you suddenly got lucky and the fide web site suddenly began to work for you.


Yes Bill, this is what mates do; they help.
Yes they are very helpful.



Yes I did because I was on the thought pattern that Barry stated with his 'compliance becomes a natural'. What I was looking for were a couple of long-standing rules that compliance has not become the norm. I found 3. You have already responded on these. I then reflected and have found what I was looking for in Barry's post about GONG disturbances. I posted on this and am waiting for Barry.

So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?
I'm just amazed a player who has been around as long as you did not have a copy of the FIDE rules handy.
As for any conclusion, its just that you were extremely fortunate the internet decided to suddenly work for you in those intervening 17-20 minutes.



Not amazing to me Bill. I was on a dial-up at home. The URL I was trying which was like FIDE.com was short. The URL that Barry gave was (now obvious to me) the same site but some drill-down page. Why did Baz's work. Search me. I can't even display Jeos board facility since I took advice and turned off some display functions. Web-sites often don't display for me. Ask Jeo; he has given me a special URL to get to chesschat as all the normal ones don't work
(Before you ask....Windows95...IE5...56k).
Amazing that it can resolve to a paricular page on a web site but could not apparently resolve to www.fide.com.


So, spell it out Bill, what is your conclusion?
rather than continue to get by on amazing co-incidences my conculsion is you would appear to need a new computer. ;)

Garvinator
30-09-2004, 03:21 PM
rather than continue to get by on amazing co-incidences my conculsion is you would appear to need a new computer. ;)
also change to broadband and change to mozilla firefox instead of ie5. Starter, why do you use ie5 and not ie6 :eh:

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 05:12 PM
also change to broadband and change to mozilla firefox instead of ie5. Starter, why do you use ie5 and not ie6 :eh:
hi gg''
I had a fully functioning computer (as described).
Was a bit slow so a BB mate suggested turning off xxxx.
Did that and now K's diagrams etc do not display.
Reported this to K. and he said 'get a new computer'.

Have a second problem accessing some web-sites...chesschat.com for example. Reported to K.........and he said ...here, use this port. Now works.

Have intermittent 'server not found' problems.
Usually resort to 'try again later', or ask a mate.
Told Bill...and he said 'get a new computer'.

And now you suggest that I go the upgrade path.

All I am doing is wp on a BB.

starter

skip to my lou
30-09-2004, 06:34 PM
Your computer and ISP are both old and outdated.

The server not found etc errors are caused by your ISP. Your ISP isn't doing proper DNS updates. This is also the reason why some URLs work for you and some don't. Broadband is not required.

Even MS doesn't support 95 anymore, you should atleast get windows 2000 or windows xp.

Computer is something that you should be frequently upgrading (atleast once in 2 or 3 years), to stay up to date. There are many reasons to do this: Speed, Stability, Security are just a few. A new computer doesn't have to be expensive. You only need to upgrade or get a new tower. A new tower (or upgrade) with decent specs can cost you as little as $800 or so.

Anyway, if you feel like resetting the settings your friend told you to make, let me know what settings they were and what you did and I will help you reset them.

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 08:00 PM
Your computer and ISP are both old and outdated.

The server not found etc errors are caused by your ISP. Your ISP isn't doing proper DNS updates. This is also the reason why some URLs work for you and some don't. Broadband is not required.

Even MS doesn't support 95 anymore, you should atleast get windows 2000 or windows xp.

Computer is something that you should be frequently upgrading (atleast once in 2 or 3 years), to stay up to date. There are many reasons to do this: Speed, Stability, Security are just a few. A new computer doesn't have to be expensive. You only need to upgrade or get a new tower. A new tower (or upgrade) with decent specs can cost you as little as $800 or so.

Anyway, if you feel like resetting the settings your friend told you to make, let me know what settings they were and what you did and I will help you reset them.

Thanks Jeo for taking the time to write this post. Please don't take my reference to you saying 'buy a new computer' as criticism of you. I work in a business LAN/WAN environment where if you report a fault to the HELPDesk they send on-site support around to 'blow' away the entire configuration and re-build. The concept of fault-fixing is a relic. King is the concept of the throw-away.

Now, Bill.
After Jeo's diagnosis I am ready to accept your apology.
See, not 'amazing' as you claimed, but K. has put his finger on ISP thingies (whatever they are). Why does K. know more than you Bill? I think he is under 20, and I think you have a big important IT job. Surprising that he seems to have lapped you.

starter

Spiny Norman
30-09-2004, 08:20 PM
starter,

Since you were so generous with your time when I visited your club recently, I'd like to see if I can do you a favour in return.

I am currently doing a complete refit of my company's PCs. Most of them are old and decrepit ... but the occasional one is "non standard" but still works fine if its treated with respect.

These are, typically, small footprint deskptop cases, perhaps 256MB RAM (some are less) and a reasonable amount of disk. They run Windows 2000 Professional really well, but struggle to make the leap to Windows XP and beyond.

I'd arrange for the O/S to be pre-installed for you ... all you'd need to do is add any productivity apps and connect up a modem.

I'll donate one to you, with monitor and peripherals, if you're interested. If you prefer, I could position it internally at my end as "Donated to Box Hill Chess Club" ... might make my job of getting approval a bit easier too I guess.

It would probably last you for another couple of years I'd reckon ...

Let me know. I think you've got my email address. Post here if not.

Regards,

Frosty

ursogr8
30-09-2004, 09:53 PM
Steve
I have sent you a private message.
regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
30-09-2004, 11:33 PM
Now, Bill.
After Jeo's diagnosis I am ready to accept your apology.
You will be waiting a long time.


See, not 'amazing' as you claimed, but K. has put his finger on ISP thingies (whatever they are). Why does K. know more than you Bill? I think he is under 20, and I think you have a big important IT job. Surprising that he seems to have lapped you.
He may well be right but he may equally well be wrong or only partially correct.

Given his comment it does not appear that he was suggesting their DNS server was down but rather that it is not doing DNS updates correctly.
Of that is the case it is unlikely that www.fide.com will get a DNS error and that www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 will not.

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 12:21 AM
Talking of touch move rules this is from the round 5 report for the Monarch Assurance Isle of Man International tournament.

There was a little incident in the Moiseenko-Ghaem Maghami game. On move 31 Moiseenko played Rc3, pressed his clock, then unpressed his clock, put the rook back and played Rc5 instead.
This was observed by spectators as well as his opponent. Of course, touch-piece-move was enforced, although Moiseenko claimed that he had meant to play Rc5. Rc3 was a terrible blunder and cost him the game.
Moiseenko complained that his opponent had put him off by offering a draw twice earlier in the game. Curiously, Ghaem Maghami's scoresheet does indeed record draw offers made by him on move 10 and 19, although Moiseenko's scoresheet doesn't.

Moiseenko is a 2640 GM from the Ukraine.

ursogr8
01-10-2004, 01:16 PM
He may well be right but he may equally well be wrong or only partially correct.

Given his comment it does not appear that he was suggesting their DNS server was down but rather that it is not doing DNS updates correctly.
Of that is the case it is unlikely that www.fide.com will get a DNS error and that www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 will not.


Well Bill I guess you are reduced to accepting my word for the events as they transpired.
I tried something like www.fide.comand had a problem.
Posted for help on the BB.
Got another (related) URL.
That worked.
I proceeded to immediately use the FIDE rules in a post.

Doubt Jeo if you wish. Doubt me if you wish. But I can't see your point.


starter

skip to my lou
01-10-2004, 07:45 PM
He may well be right but he may equally well be wrong or only partially correct.

Given his comment it does not appear that he was suggesting their DNS server was down but rather that it is not doing DNS updates correctly.
Of that is the case it is unlikely that www.fide.com will get a DNS error and that www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 will not.


It is most probably because he used one with www and the other with NO www, in either case I am quite sure his ISP does not do proper DNS updates. When I registered chesschat.org, I made an error in the nameserver IP's and so the second nameserver was returning an error, so basically 50% of requests were not going through. After I fixed it, everyone had access to the board except starter. I remember DNS master records has changed for the ORG and some other extensions, so his ISP probably hasn't updated to the new ones.

ursogr8
01-10-2004, 09:24 PM
It is most probably because he used one with www and the other with NO www, in either case I am quite sure his ISP does not do proper DNS updates. When I registered chesschat.org, I made an error in the nameserver IP's and so the second nameserver was returning an error, so basically 50% of requests were not going through. After I fixed it, everyone had access to the board except starter. I remember DNS master records has changed for the ORG and some other extensions, so his ISP probably hasn't updated to the new ones.

Geez Bill
This Jeo bloke seems to know his stuff. Now he has got diagnosis which explains why the root FIDE.com did not work for me, but the drill down page URL did.
And he obviously knows more about my ISP than I do.

Can you understand his techo. words Bill. Fills me full of respect for him.

Mt B. IT is in good hands it seems.

starter

Garvinator
01-10-2004, 09:29 PM
Mt B. IT is in good hands it seems.
hence why we kept him ;)

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 10:27 PM
Geez Bill
This Jeo bloke seems to know his stuff. Now he has got diagnosis which explains why the root FIDE.com did not work for me, but the drill down page URL did.
And he obviously knows more about my ISP than I do.
Nice try starter but in post #140 you said:

I tried something like www.fide.comand had a problem.

Therefore in that case Jeos answer does not answer why www.fide.com did not work for you but apparently www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 did.


Can you understand his techo. words Bill. Fills me full of respect for him.
Too bad for you that yout attempts here and your defence of the GURU dont fill me the same way.

ursogr8
01-10-2004, 10:40 PM
Nice try starter but in post #140 you said:

Bill
I said 'like'.
Meaning 'near', ;maybe a bit different, but similar'; 'not exacty the same'.

Tomorrow I will look up the URL in my favourites and advise you.





Therefore in that case Jeos answer does not answer why www.fide.com did not work for you but apparently www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 did.

Jeo's answer still has good chance of being correct



Too bad for you that yout attempts here and your defence of the GURU dont fill me the same way.

I have seen you do this before Bill; drag in something irrelevant (but controversial) to the thread. Keep it simple Bill. One issue at a time.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 10:46 PM
Bill
I said 'like'.
Meaning 'near', ;maybe a bit different, but similar'; 'not exacty the same'.

Tomorrow I will look up the URL in my favourites and advise you.
Were you not using your home machine rather than a work machine when you had the problem.
Hence wouldnt you be on your home machine now.


Jeo's answer still has good chance of being correct
Quite probably.


I have seen you do this before Bill; drag in something irrelevant (but controversial) to the thread. Keep it simple Bill. One issue at a time.
Surely you can work on two things at once.
After all arent you a project manager starter.

skip to my lou
01-10-2004, 10:55 PM
He said something like www.fide.com, he probably tried just fide.com.

Another possibility is that since http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 is an inner page, his ISP could have sent his browser a cached version, while fide.com probably have disabled cache through pragma headers (probably because of the news on the front page) so his ISP may not have a cached version. There are usually three levels of caching, server, ISP and browser. If your ISP caches pages, then there is not much you can do about it.

I can't be 100% sure with just 404 errors, I would need more specific error messages to determine the exact cause, which probably only his ISP have.

Edit: (If a moderator wants to split this stuff off to computer forums, please do)

Bill Gletsos
01-10-2004, 11:08 PM
He said something like www.fide.com, he probably tried just fide.com.

Another possibility is that since http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE1 is an inner page, his ISP could have sent his browser a cached version, while fide.com probably have disabled cache through pragma headers (probably because of the news on the front page) so his ISP may not have a cached version. There are usually three levels of caching, server, ISP and browser. If your ISP caches pages, then there is not much you can do about it.

I can't be 100% sure with just 404 errors, I would need more specific error messages to determine the exact cause, which probably only his ISP have.

I actually agree with you.
However starter has been anything but actually specific about things.

ursogr8
02-10-2004, 03:19 PM
Well Bill I guess you are reduced to accepting my word for the events as they transpired.
I tried something like www.fide.comand had a problem.
Posted for help on the BB.
Got another (related) URL.
That worked.
I proceeded to immediately use the FIDE rules in a post.

Doubt Jeo if you wish. Doubt me if you wish. But I can't see your point.


starter

Bill
Here is the exact navigation I used
1 Go to http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/index.html
2 Select Rules down the left hand side.
3 Select http://handbook.fide.com

And bingo, bombs out again when I try it today.

As I said before >>
Doubt Jeo if you wish. Doubt me if you wish. But I can't see your point.

starter

ursogr8
02-10-2004, 03:43 PM
Were you not using your home machine rather than a work machine when you had the problem.
Hence wouldnt you be on your home machine now.



No Bill,
Jeez, your capability for jumping to the correct conclusion has gone down hill in the past week. Another incorrect deduction of yours.

Last night I was using the computer around at the Box Hill Chess Club. I declared this on the TOURNAMENT FORUM.

starter

Bill Gletsos
02-10-2004, 05:02 PM
Bill
Here is the exact navigation I used
1 Go to http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/index.html
2 Select Rules down the left hand side.
3 Select http://handbook.fide.com
Your story keeps on continually changing.

In your first response to my questioning you about checking the fide web site you replied in post #120 that:

I tried both the link from the ACF site and a FIDE.com link I had stored in my favourites.
You should note the ACF web site link goes to www.fide.com.

Therefore all my questions regarding why it www.fide.com did not work but barry and garvins links to pages within www.fide.com work are completely reasonable.

Then in post #122 you said:

The URL I was trying which was like FIDE.com was short.
Then in post #140 you said:

I tried something like www.fide.com and had a problem.

Now although you try and side step it with the word like it is apparent from all the above that it is unclear whether you tried www.fide.com or just fide.com.


However all that now seems to be completely incorrect and you have a new answer. :naughty: :naughty:
You tried the link from the Box Hill web site which apparently goes to handbook.fide.com which is bound to fail since it is invalid.

You could easily have said this back in post #120. Yet there is no mention of this until now? :hmm: :hmm: :rolleyes:

I would just like some consistency in your answers.



As I said before >>
Doubt Jeo if you wish. Doubt me if you wish. But I can't see your point.

I doubt you due to your demonstrable inconsistency.

Bill Gletsos
02-10-2004, 05:04 PM
No Bill,
Jeez, your capability for jumping to the correct conclusion has gone down hill in the past week. Another incorrect deduction of yours.
Actually I claimed nothing. I asked two questions.


Last night I was using the computer around at the Box Hill Chess Club. I declared this on the TOURNAMENT FORUM.
I just checked that forum and you apparently declared no such thing, although I will admit on reading your posts it is clear you were at the venue.

However that is immaterial. I was focusing not only on this thread but also on arguing with you and your stupid claims regarding the Guri's "national" titles.

It would appear however that you were not focusing on this thread last evening. I made my comment regarding your home computer at 10.46pm. It is obvious you were posting well after that time last night but it took until today for you to comment on it.

ursogr8
02-10-2004, 07:15 PM
I just checked that forum and you apparently declared no such thing, although I will admit on reading your posts it is clear you were at the venue.

If I post that I am at the venue watching games that means that I am declare myself to be at the venue Bill. Stop with the literalness mate otherwise we will end in a jammo_firegoat 'announcement' dispute.


However that is immaterial. I was focusing not only on this thread but also on arguing with you and your stupid claims regarding the Guri's "national" titles. Sorry...no can discuss....on this thread.



It would appear however that you were not focusing on this thread last evening. I made my comment regarding your home computer at 10.46pm. It is obvious you were posting well after that time last night but it took until today for you to comment on it.


I don't think I understand this. But it doesn't look like I have done anything to be explained....so, pass.



have a nice night Bill
regards
starter

ursogr8
02-10-2004, 07:39 PM
Your story keeps on continually changing.
Of course it does Bill, because I am human and I was relying on memory.
I knew I could not remember the exact FIDE.com URL.......so I used the word 'like' to indicate 'unreliable in exact accuracy'. I like 'like' better than 'unreliable in exact accuracy' by the way,



In your first response to my questioning you about checking the fide web site you replied in post #120 that:

You should note the ACF web site link goes to www.fide.com.

Therefore all my questions regarding why it www.fide.com did not work but barry and garvins links to pages within www.fide.com work are completely reasonable.

Bill, I had no problem with your questions that attempted understand my problem with the URL. But what was over the top was the 'repeated use of 'amazing' and amazing co-incidence'; they carried hints as to the veracity of my descriptions.



Then in post #122 you said:

Then in post #140 you said:

Now although you try and side step it with the word like it is apparent from all the above that it is unclear whether you tried www.fide.com or just fide.com.

Bill, not only could I not remember the URL I tried (and thus used the qualifier 'like'), I could not remember the navigation path either. It was not till this afternoon when I returned here (home) and accessed FAVOURITES and found that FIDE.com was not there did I realise I had gone boxhillchess.org and RULES to get to handbook.FIDE.com. (And of course I could see that was what I had done because the links were greyed). Now you smarties might know why handbook.FIDE.com fails but to me I just shrug my shoulders and go on the BB and ask my mates. Nice gg'' and nice Barry quickly helped me. Remember this Bill, handbook.FIDE.com was put there as a link by Phillip. Yes, you know Phillip, professional programmer, super web-master, etc. if he puts a link there then I trust it. If the link doesn't work then I ask a friend.



However all that now seems to be completely incorrect and you have a new answer. :naughty: :naughty:
You tried the link from the Box Hill web site which apparently goes to handbook.fide.com which is bound to fail since it is invalid.

You could easily have said this back in post #120. Yet there is no mention of this until now? :hmm: :hmm: :rolleyes:

I think I covered all this. I did not remember the things you wanted me to remember at the time you wanted me to remember them.




I would just like some consistency in your answers.

I did not expect to be interrogated for asking mates for help. In future Bill I will keep a full diary of every key-stroke



I doubt you due to your demonstrable inconsistency.


But Bill, I have always been human, and rely on memory. This is not a new phenomenon. After 1900 posts I thought you would have had some insight.


respecting your great contribution to Australian chess Bill
starter

ps......somewhere in a post you expressed surpise that I did not have a copy of the FIDE Rules on hand. Well I don't Bill. I am not an Arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
02-10-2004, 08:57 PM
Of course it does Bill, because I am human and I was relying on memory.
I knew I could not remember the exact FIDE.com URL.......so I used the word 'like' to indicate 'unreliable in exact accuracy'. I like 'like' better than 'unreliable in exact accuracy' by the way,

Bill, I had no problem with your questions that attempted understand my problem with the URL. But what was over the top was the 'repeated use of 'amazing' and amazing co-incidence'; they carried hints as to the veracity of my descriptions.

Bill, not only could I not remember the URL I tried (and thus used the qualifier 'like'), I could not remember the navigation path either. It was not till this afternoon when I returned here (home) and accessed FAVOURITES and found that FIDE.com was not there did I realise I had gone boxhillchess.org and RULES to get to handbook.FIDE.com. (And of course I could see that was what I had done because the links were greyed). Now you smarties might know why handbook.FIDE.com fails but to me I just shrug my shoulders and go on the BB and ask my mates. Nice gg'' and nice Barry quickly helped me. Remember this Bill, handbook.FIDE.com was put there as a link by Phillip. Yes, you know Phillip, professional programmer, super web-master, etc. if he puts a link there then I trust it. If the link doesn't work then I ask a friend.

I think I covered all this. I did not remember the things you wanted me to remember at the time you wanted me to remember them.
The point I'm trying to make is that you explicitly said in post #120 you tried using the link on the ACF web page. This link goes directly to www.fide.com. Hence why I focused on it.
This however did not work for you yet Barry's and gg's link to a page on www.fide.com did. This is the part I find amazing since it is this that did not make sense and that is not completely explained by Jeos responses.


I did not expect to be interrogated for asking mates for help. In future Bill I will keep a full diary of every key-stroke
As I said your response did not adequately explain the above.


But Bill, I have always been human, and rely on memory. This is not a new phenomenon. After 1900 posts I thought you would have had some insight.
That is why the bb search function is your friend. ;)


ps......somewhere in a post you expressed surpise that I did not have a copy of the FIDE Rules on hand. Well I don't Bill. I am not an Arbiter.
Yes, but you are a player. ;)
If the players were more aware of the rules they would firstly require less intervention by the arbiter and secondly be less likely to argue with him. :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
02-10-2004, 09:07 PM
If I post that I am at the venue watching games that means that I am declare myself to be at the venue Bill. Stop with the literalness mate otherwise we will end in a jammo_firegoat 'announcement' dispute.
True but you appear to be missing the point.
I can only be aware that you were at the venue if I read your posts about it prior to me posting about computers at home.


Sorry...no can discuss....on this thread.
Again you are missing the point.
I'm not suggesting you discuss it here.
I was pointing out what threads I was reading last night and responding to.


I don't think I understand this. But it doesn't look like I have done anything to be explained....so, pass.
The point was you apparently did not see my home computer comment otherwise I expected you would have replied at the time, yet you somehow have expected me to have know via a completely unrelated thread and one I was not posting on that you were at Box Hill last night.
That logic just seemed inconsistent to me.


have a nice night Bill
You too starter.

Garvinator
02-10-2004, 09:15 PM
If the players were more aware of the rules they would firstly require less intervention by the arbiter and secondly be less likely to argue with him. :hmm:
or argue with her :cool:

Garvinator
02-10-2004, 09:16 PM
I am calling for a moderator, i dont think any of the latest posts really have anything to do with mobile phones. The argument is revolving around website addresses, not mobile phone rules.

skip to my lou
02-10-2004, 09:54 PM
This is the part I find amazing since it is this that did not make sense and that is not completely explained by Jeos responses.

'It does not work' or 'error' is not enough for me to give an exact reason for why it didn't work.

Bill Gletsos
02-10-2004, 11:34 PM
'It does not work' or 'error' is not enough for me to give an exact reason for why it didn't work.
I agree.
Unfortunately starter appeared to be using your answers as a definitive answer.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2004, 04:42 AM
I am calling for a moderator, i dont think any of the latest posts really have anything to do with mobile phones. The argument is revolving around website addresses, not mobile phone rules.

They don't have anything to do with arbiting generally either, which seems to be the real subject of this thread. Might rename it or merge some bits with arbiter's corner if I get around to it.

I think that the discussion about web addresses is the sort of thing that private messages are for.

ursogr8
03-10-2004, 07:44 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that you explicitly said in post #120 you tried using the link on the ACF web page. This link goes directly to www.fide.com. Hence why I focused on it.
This however did not work for you

The confusion is about to get worse Bill. Yesterday I looked at the ACF web page link when I was trying to re-track the NAVIGATION path. Guess whats. 1 It was grey........i.e I think I tried it to find the rule book. 2 It worked.
SohelpmeBill........I have no explanation > it is just one more mystery, as to why it did not work first time.
Btw, my life is like this......full of broken software tools, dead web-site accesses, links that go nowhere, mails with missing attachments.




yet Barry's and gg's link to a page on www.fide.com did. This is the part I find amazing since it is this that did not make sense and that is not completely explained by Jeos responses.
I think I could have lived with 'amazing' Bill, but 'amazing co-incidence' got up my nose.




That is why the bb search function is your friend. ;)
But not my usual NAVIGATION route. ;)



Yes, but you are a player. ;)
If the players were more aware of the rules they would firstly require less intervention by the arbiter and secondly be less likely to argue with him. :hmm:

Me? Argumentative? Bill how could you. :eek:
I always ask a friend first. :uhoh:
The ARBITER is my friend. :hand:



Off to watch SANDLER v JOHANSON at Federation square this arvo
regards
starter

ursogr8
03-10-2004, 07:52 AM
I think that the discussion about web addresses is the sort of thing that private messages are for.

Kevin


:eek: Oh. Great.
Those wonderful conversationalists ChessLover and Scott have been forced off the board, leaving a dearth of white noise. Matt has taken a sabbatical. And now when Bill and I try an exercise in root-causes we get told to go off-line.

If your posts are so relevant and great, how come no-one ever asked you about your signature line?

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-10-2004, 02:00 PM
The confusion is about to get worse Bill. Yesterday I looked at the ACF web page link when I was trying to re-track the NAVIGATION path. Guess whats. 1 It was grey........i.e I think I tried it to find the rule book. 2 It worked.
SohelpmeBill........I have no explanation > it is just one more mystery, as to why it did not work first time.
Btw, my life is like this......full of broken software tools, dead web-site accesses, links that go nowhere, mails with missing attachments.
I think we have discussed this to death, Im prepared to drop it if you are.


I think I could have lived with 'amazing' Bill, but 'amazing co-incidence' got up my nose.
You just need to blow harder then. ;)


Me? Argumentative? Bill how could you. :eek:
I wasnt suggesting you are, just that players would do themselves a service if they actually knew the rules.

I always ask a friend first. :uhoh:
:uhoh: indeed. that action is feaught with danger unless your friend happens to actually know he rules.

The ARBITER is my friend. :hand:
Careful there or someone might accuse you of having undue influence. :lol:

skip to my lou
03-10-2004, 03:19 PM
Someone please split this fide URL stuff off into computer forums. Thanks.

Garvinator
03-10-2004, 03:29 PM
Someone please split this fide URL stuff off into computer forums. Thanks.
i think post 120 is a good place to start ;)

Rincewind
03-10-2004, 06:56 PM
Someone please split this fide URL stuff off into computer forums. Thanks.

Did I do good?

ursogr8
03-10-2004, 09:58 PM
Did I do good?

hi Barry
Thanks for putting some energy into this thread separation.
Obviously you are looking for some feedback.

OK, here goes.

1 The thread title. Inappropriate to use the question mark given that we all now know which URL was broken. Your choice would have been OK originally, but after analysis........

2 Your post. As always, cheerful, helpful, and wonderfully succinct.

3 Closed thread. This would have been appropriate given Bill's declaration of an outbreak of peace. Also would have been appropriate given the whole topic was not extraordinary.

starter