Author: Howard Exner
Date: 06:30:46 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 01:18:27, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. > >One thing for sure: in the GM-challenge I NEVER would allow a GM to lose >on time because of Internet problems. You just start to look for solutions >the game can be continued. Maybe the next day, if not possible the day after >and so on. Internet problems are nobody's fault and therefore nobody should >be a victim of that. Mig is certainly missing this important aspect of competition. The event of the game is itself the priority. All should be focused on having the event played and having the variables fit that goal. Mig is in reverse here. He wants to instead fit the game into the restraints of time and human inconvenience and the like. If chess wants to be recognized and appreciated on the level of other spectator sports then such variables as time and human inconvenience must be made to fit the event. This is exactly what happens in professional tennis for example. A game is delayed and the pundits come out and analyse who will will benefit more from the delay, but the game is not halted due to one side having this or that advantage. As for the time constraint, that's just simply understood - you never tell the players or audience to just go home because there is no time to finish. Goodness, the participants surely know that Deep Junior is an emotionless, iron willed computer. Mig's "poor inconveniecd Adams" theme is wearing thin. Next time allow for the following: 1. Games are put on a pedestal and variables should accomodate that. 2. Allow some time for delays or postponement. 3. Have participants understand this and those with busy schedules can go find a different tournament to play in. 4. If you choose an arbiter, respect his or her decisions. If they do a lousy job replace them for the next event. Postivosky (spelling?) ruled correctly to play on. Adams could have won the second game and been a hero. Amir is right, the third party VP intervention rushed the decision, putting a few hours of time as something more valuable than the sporting event. > >IMO game-1 should be continued by all means and the second game should be >played thereafter. Anything else is highly unfair. The same applies in case >things would have happened the opposite. > >A VERY bad decission Mig! > >Ed Schroder
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.