Author: Larry Proffer
Date: 02:18:03 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 23:17:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 03, 2001 at 16:20:57, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>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. > > > > >You think you will know what happened behind the scenes just by looking at what >was said publicly? > >OK, let's give it a try. > >At first, Keene said that he would support anything that Enrique would decide. Which confirms Keene as non-expert, relying on the expert and presumably impartial advice of Enrique. That's what BGN brought Enrique in for. >That was his answer when we included him in CC and complained (once again) about >Tiger being ignored by the selection process (21.04.2001). > >Later that day we offered to send the SMP Tiger the next day, and to send the >final version when the DF-DJ match would be over. Keene said that it sounded >reasonnable and hoped we would all agree on this (21.04.2001). Keene comes across each time as reasonable and searching for sensible solutions. > >But later Enrique said no, and that we should send the final SMP version on >Monday 23rd. > And this is the key, right? Ok, your position and Ed's are the same. You both say the question of Tiger participation was open still (ie not prevented by contract), that Keene was prepared to go with a compromise (with regard to time) solution; and that Enrique stopped it for reasons unclear. Right? > > > > > >>They posit an ongoing block for whatever reason by Enrique (which could, by >>definition be overruled by Keene), you posit decision already made. > > > > >That's what I understood when I thought about it later. That's a post mortem >analysis if you prefer. > > Ok, accepted. > > > >>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? > > > >We are not in disagreement. Good. You'ld be falling into a serious trap if you were. Try and keep it that way. >What are you trying to do exactly? > > Clarify the position for all to see. > > > 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.