Author: Peter Berger
Date: 16:37:38 02/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2005 at 18:54:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 12, 2005 at 17:49:14, Will Singleton wrote: > >>You are worse than a screwball. I know I don't have any say in what goes on >>here, but I sure as hell won't be playing in any tourney against you. >> >>I think you need to understand that there is a reason people elect >>representatives to lead them, and that is so that anarchy will not ensue. Think >>about it, when you grow up. >> >>Will > >This is the most rude posting i ever saw in my life. > >Let me point out why: > a) Very unsportive Crafty offers several draws > b) the last draw offer gets taken by fafis and he communicates it to channel >64. After that fafis doesn't play any more anymore as he took the draw. >Obviously. > c) Skinner should of course have decided directly this to be a draw. Simply >stating he had already annotated it as a draw. > d) At world champs after a draw offer which gets taken, the clock sometimes >runs on too, but it's a draw. No matter what. It was offered. It was taken. NO >DISCUSSION POSSIBLE HERE about the fact that he took the offered draw offer. > e) he didn't "profit from the draw offer later". He took the draw offer with >what was it. With many minutes left on clock. Be it 8 or 10, it doesn't matter. >We don't talk about some 'emergency draw claim' here. We talk about a draw offer >taken in all sportiveness. > f) it was an obvious draw to everyone at the time it was taken. If someone >would lose it would be crafty still, as only fafis has pawns left to promote. > g) if we really are going to dick with the rules, they don't say that a draw >offer requires that the icc score reflects the draw > >Not only is he in his full rights, not only did skinner do it completely wrong. > >He should not dictatorial decide it's a loss. At most he can say it's a draw and >in case of a protest from Bob on that outcome he can ask for the players meeting >where every player has 1 vote. > >I fully support the Fafis author and i can imagine that he left the server. > >Not only did he lose by means of a claim round 1 (where he was simply 1 hour >late and where i know some people who do this still ca nplay in world champs >their round, i remember junior starting 2 hours later a game against Warp in >2002 for example) he also lost this round. And this time it REALLY is >unjustified. > >All with all the tournament director has made a serious mistake here. > >It is only a few crafty supporters who find the awarding of the full point to >crafty correct, that shoudl already raise your eye browse. Doesn't happen often - I agree with your basic conclusions, Vincent :). Several caveats. a.) I don't see how the tournament director could have acted any different given the circumstances. Peter Skinner is not too blame at all. b.) Crafty was unattended. So blaming it is clearly wrong too. What was missing here was some kind of appeal comittee. Maybe it would have reached the same conclusion, but the dropping out could have surely been avoided. Fafis reached a draw against Crafty on the chessboard . Had both authors been present, there would have been no problems here. Rafael showed that he was unexperienced with how ICC works, some authors just spent too little time on testing IMHO, this is his fault methinks. I won't judge the refusal to continue to play, but I can understand it. What happened is somewhat wrong, and that Rafael felt more emotional about it than a casual observer is easy to understand. A typical case of shit happens .. Peter PS: Can't understand the wild accuses in this thread.
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.