Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:19:28 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 12:15:20, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On February 17, 2000 at 11:02:40, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>Adams would have been forfeited under the rules due to his inability to connect >>for over one hour in game 1. The fact that Junior had to forfeit and not Adams >>is incredibly unfair. > >Absolutely true. Also read the post by Amir: The Junior team simply got the >message 'you forfeited'. Period. No explanation whatsoever. > >If a tournament organization allows a computer to take part, it should have the >same rights as the other participants. In this case Adams was unable to connect, >so the first game should be '1-0' because of forfeit by Adams. > >There is a saying 'If you can't beat them, join them'. In this case KC has made >it more like 'If you can't beat them, forfeit them'. > >My sympathy goes to Amir and the Junior team. The behaving of the tournament >management of KC has nothing to do with sportsmanship. But they get what they >deserve: Very bad promotion. And they can only blame themselves. >Jeroen Please give me one thing that carries the name of kasparov and is a success :) > >>This is done and beyond repair. As some sort of compensation, and in the name >of fairness and general interest, how about Junior playing a 2 game match >against the winner of Kasparov's Grand Prix? >> >>Enrique
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.