Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 13:20:57 05/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 15:03:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 02:43:47, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>On May 02, 2001 at 18:30:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>What I mean is that they would have get the program after the DF-DJ match, and >>>they could have done whatever they wanted in order to achieve a fair match. >>> >>>Now that we know a little bit more about this, I realize that anyway their >>>schedule was already fixed, and that the offer from Enrique to include SMP Tiger >>>(if he could get it on Monday 23rd) was a fake. Tiger would have never been >>>allowed to compete anyway. >>> >> >>Endless beating around the bush with allegations and innuendo .... >> >>Suggesting that Enrique was 'toying' with you makes no sense. Why would he want >>to do that? > > > >Because he realized that he has made a mistake (or has committed himself into a >faulty selection process) and wanted to reject the fault on me. > >This is easily done by demanding an impossible deadline, then saying that I did >not manage to respect the time schedule. > >Now he can argue that I was offered to play. Most people will not look any >further and will not realize that the offer was poisoned. > This is all very unclear. The model you present is that the participation was already decided and that Enrique was making a false offer that he had no intention of completing on for purposes of public consumption (PR). But Bertil (and Ed's reporting of Keene's statement) suggest that the thing was still open. They suggest that Enrique blocked Tiger against Bertil's recommendation and Keene's acceptance (F, J, S and Tiger(s) = strongest, according to Bertil), (sounds ok for Tiger, according to Ed's report of Keene). Their model of what happened is different to your model. They posit an ongoing block for whatever reason by Enrique (which could, by definition be overruled by Keene), you posit decision already made. Their position poses the question of why Enrique blocked as Ed said. Enrique appears prime mover in their scenario. Your position poses the question of why a prior block was already in place. Enrique may have been in your scenario either just a messenger, or responsible for the advice leading to a prior in-place blocking contract. These allegations and open letters and public postings are coming from your side. You need a consistent and internally supporting story to back your allegations up. If you and Ed are in effective public disagreement over what happened, then what does that say? What is everybody supposed to think? > > > > >>Why don't you come clean with what you mean? Put up or shut-up. >> >>Was the offer a 'fake' because it was all decided elsewhere and Enrique was the >>messenger? >> >>Or was the offer a 'fake' because Enrique was the decider and he had decided to >>keep you out? >> >>It is not clear from your's and Ed's posts which of these you mean. >> >>If case A, who decided? >> >>Or to put it another way, who or what entity kept you out? >> >>And why? > > > >I know where you want to lead me into, but I won't go there with you. > I'm not trying to lead you anywhere, I'm trying to find out what happened. The stories are inconsistent and keep changing. > > > > Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.