Author: margolies,marc
Date: 12:00:45 04/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Sune, for me and perhaps for you, chess is and will always be a simple game. I still feel the need to reconcile the fact that someone will win and another lose. Not all players who come to the board are prepared for this. Particularly so in world championships where the pride of populations and the success of future national chess funding --and some cases perhaps the civil liberities of the player, coach and family of these rest on the outcome of a match.so there is a need for independant review whenever a prize fund is at stakeand the players are otherwise unknown to each other. There will always be a need for qualified fide arbiters, even more than a need for a fide organization under president kirsan I., who occassionally attempts to make local political capital out of his position and not in the best interests of chess. the value of a rule book, particularly a 'fat' one, is the arbiter's job is clearly defined and less about his mood or feeelings. as long as these rules are democratically elected by the organizations which are governed by these rules, their particulars should not concern me much. a particular exception is the set of rules which seem to against the grain of the players in pursuit of a mirage of non-existant sponsorship. ashey's no-draw rule and urine testing rules for chess teams come immediately to mind under this umbrella of annoyances which are an exception to my larger statement.
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.