Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:25:12 06/28/99
If you go to news:rec.games.chess.misc you will find that some people like to
talk about scandals and intrigue in the game of chess and all that surrounds it.
Sometimes the statements may be based in fact, other times not. Sam Sloan
seems to usually have some sort of reason to think that the things he brings up
are factual -- in his mind at least. [Cough] "Dr." Graue does not seem to
[IMO-YMMV] but simply blurts out anything that will seem to stir up the bee's
nest.
So what I am asking is this:
"Is there enough value in casting aspersions -- even when there may possibly be
some validity -- to make it a worthwhile topic for CCC? Consider, for a moment,
the accusations against Amir Ban. Now, the way I see the possibilities are as
follows:
1. He was misunderstood. {In which case he receives negative publicity without
cause}
OR
2. He was partly understood. {In which case we do not have the full story}
OR
3. He was fully understood. {In which case he did show poor sportsmanship. But
even at that, haven't all of us said or done something stupid when we were
sitting among a group of our friends? I am sure that each and every reader here
has had sour grapes at some point}.
So, what I am really getting at is this:
"Does the 'brining to light' of perceived scandals have value that outweighs the
negative implications for the group as a whole?"
>>NOW SEE! That's an opinion poll question!<< ;-)
On the other hand, I can see where supression of the facts of any matter might
seem to be a great loss to some persons. My impression (personally) is that it
would be better to discuss positives rather than negatives. But that's just one
person's opinion.
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.