Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 09:15:20 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 11:02:40, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >Adams would have been forfeited under the rules due to his inability to connect >for over one hour in game 1. The fact that Junior had to forfeit and not Adams >is incredibly unfair. Absolutely true. Also read the post by Amir: The Junior team simply got the message 'you forfeited'. Period. No explanation whatsoever. If a tournament organization allows a computer to take part, it should have the same rights as the other participants. In this case Adams was unable to connect, so the first game should be '1-0' because of forfeit by Adams. There is a saying 'If you can't beat them, join them'. In this case KC has made it more like 'If you can't beat them, forfeit them'. My sympathy goes to Amir and the Junior team. The behaving of the tournament management of KC has nothing to do with sportsmanship. But they get what they deserve: Very bad promotion. And they can only blame themselves. Jeroen >This is done and beyond repair. As some sort of compensation, and in the name >of fairness and general interest, how about Junior playing a 2 game match >against the winner of Kasparov's Grand Prix? > >Enrique
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.