Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:57:16 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 Grow up. Crafty offers a draw every 5 moves to avoid being obnoxious. That is "unsportive"? > 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. Channel 64 is not the place to report a draw. When you have your program playing automatically on ICC do you report wins/losses/draws to channel 64 or to the server directly? That's what I thought. > 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. You know full well that there is a person responsible for allowing a draw at ACM/ICGA events, that being the TD. In our case, because of the "automatic interface" requirement, for the purpose of logging wins/draws/losses, ICC itself is the responsible party, not the TD, not channel 64, not the players voting, not drawing straws, not reading tea leaves, just playing chess like Crafty has been playing on ICC for hundreds of thousands of games over the past 10 years. > 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. Crafty wasn't going to lose. It was reporting EGTB draws for _many_ moves. So that is nonsense. > 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 Oh yes they do. They say that the programs must use an automatic interface with _no_ human intervention. > >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 would have not objected to a draw. But the loss is the correct result based on the rules for the event. > >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. That is nonsense. The rounds were spread every 2 hours. Show up late one hour and round 2 can't start on time. I have played in _plenty_ of human events. And the rule used at USCF events is that 10 minutes after the start of a round, you start your opponent's clock. If he shows up within the announced grace period, he can play but he has lost time. If he is beyond the grace period, the game is called a forfeit for him as there is no justificantion to make his opponent sit at the table for 2 hours until his flag falls. Being late and getting a loss is perfectly reasonable. Just show up on time, or accept that you screwed up and lost a point... > >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. What raises my "eyebrowse" is your incredibly biased, incredibly opinionated, and incredibly horrible suggestions for someone that claims to be both a FIDE IM and a TD. Remind me never to play in any event you are associated with in any sort of supervisory mode, it would be gross.
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.