Author: margolies,marc
Date: 15:14:25 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
While you and I both believe DC and respect his opinion on this matter, we out to recognize that DC is not the arbitor of this issue--DL is. It is also odd that you would first challenge the arbitor's decision to hold a trial (its validity) but dot no examine the issue of non-compliance to an arbitor and its evident consequences. If a trial happens, one can argue about the fairness of its outcome, but avoidance is concession. It is quite possible that the Young Programmer had other commitments which precluded him from responding presently. With that in mind, he ought be able to submit his code and appeal his ban until year 2006 from International events. In human chess, the participant is present, therefore this issue would not arise (non-participation in the process of adjudicating a dispute between players)
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.