Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 11:39:03 05/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2004 at 14:19:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 20, 2004 at 11:31:35, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 22:21:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 21:33:48, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >>> >>>>Whether the rule is new or whether it makes sense was not my point. Omid: you >>>>have done a good job of keeping your focus on this tournament, not events of the >>>>past. Because of that Bob has given indication he might enter. But right now >>>>this rule is the sticking point. Bob: could you say "It's a stupid rule but >>>>I'll live with it and enter." Or has too much other water already gone under >>>>the bridge? I hope not. >>>> >>>>Dan H. >>> >>> >>>I've already said I am working on hardware. I have a volunteer for book >>>preparation and operator. There is simply a question of whether there is enough >>>time to get access to good hardware on such short notice... >> >>You did say that. But then you later said you were putting the search on hold >>till this entry fee business was resolved. Thats when I piped up. At any rate, >>thats fantastic. Hopefully the hardware search will work out. >> >>Dan H. > > >I probably was sloppy in my wording. The "double entry fee" issue raises >warning hackles that "no non-programmer operator" could become a possibility. >Omid seems to think "no" so I'm going with that and proceeding. Whether it will >work or not is unknown, but I'll certainly try... Omid has been steadfast in his statement so I think it is right to take him at his word. You show a lot of class for letting by-gones be by-gones. But if something changes here no one could blame you for saying "never again". Dan H.
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.