Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:18:27 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 20:47:31, ShaktiFire wrote: >Some good points. > >But the real problems was not having rules laid out a priori the disaster. > >Truth be told. They should have had rule stating , if any party loses connection >for more than an hour they will forfeit. Apparently, Junior could not connect, >if the clock had been running, they would lose. > >They should have just relayed the damn moves via telephone (since apparently >an arbiter was on site with jr.), but in the stress of the situation, it >was not thought of. > >After reading Migs explanation, I feel the Shay/Amir position was >a little overstated and Adams did not act so badly after all. > >The real problem , as stated by Mig, was the lack of written rules to >handle the situation. Given no rules, they they made a decision, not >an unreasonable decision, in my view. One thing for sure: in the GM-challenge I NEVER would allow a GM to lose on time because of Internet problems. You just start to look for solutions the game can be continued. Maybe the next day, if not possible the day after and so on. Internet problems are nobody's fault and therefore nobody should be a victim of that. IMO game-1 should be continued by all means and the second game should be played thereafter. Anything else is highly unfair. The same applies in case things would have happened the opposite. A VERY bad decission Mig! Ed Schroder
This page took 0.01 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.