Author: James T. Walker
Date: 19:24:49 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 20:47:31, ShaktiFire wrote: >Some good points. > >But the real problems was not having rules laid out a priori the disaster. > >Truth be told. They should have had rule stating , if any party loses connection >for more than an hour they will forfeit. Apparently, Junior could not connect, >if the clock had been running, they would lose. > >They should have just relayed the damn moves via telephone (since apparently >an arbiter was on site with jr.), but in the stress of the situation, it >was not thought of. > >After reading Migs explanation, I feel the Shay/Amir position was >a little overstated and Adams did not act so badly after all. > >The real problem , as stated by Mig, was the lack of written rules to >handle the situation. Given no rules, they they made a decision, not >an unreasonable decision, in my view. I think you are pretty much correct but the bottom line is -It's over-. So Amir should learn from this experience and get on with life and get ready for next time. I feel very bad as do most people about what happened and no matter which side you are on, It's over. Everyone should be a little wiser now and next time should prove better for all. Jim Walker
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.