Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:08:41 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 10:15:56, Tony Werten wrote: [snip] >>> >>>As he has been. The guy accepted the new terms and did not do what he was >>>expected to do. Actually a reason to not pay him at all. >> >>A contract is not about what you "expect" someone to do but about what is in the >>contract. If the contract says you need to play a game, then 1.e4 0-1 is fine. > >No it's not. It is the letter of the contract wich is different from fine, and >if somebody behaves that way and claims he can do so because it's legal, you >have a right to say your swindled. > >Tony Who are you kidding? If it is legal, then nobody was swindled. Where does it say that you have to attempt to play beyond move one in the rules (in fact, you do not even have to play move one)? People normally have a lot of incentive to play beyond move one, but that does not mean that they have to. Just because this offends your sensibility does not mean that it was illegal, a swindle, or that he should not get paid if he makes it to the money. Especially when the people in the tournament who win the prize funds are the ones who get the higher scores, not the lower scores due to resigning. By resigning, nobody can increase their chance for a prize fund. He resigned. Big deal! KarinsDad :)
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.