Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 14:44:21 05/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 14:08:41, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) Bosboom´s behavior was not "in the spirit of the law". JAFM
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.