Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 09:26:59 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2000 at 12:09:42, Michael Neish wrote: >On February 19, 2000 at 11:02:20, Alvaro Polo wrote: > >>On February 19, 2000 at 10:13:10, KarinsDad wrote: > >>If I were in Adams shoes, I would probably have done the same thing. So what? As >>Shakespeare said (I quote from memory, sorry) "If we were treated as we deserved >>to be, who could avoid being whipped?". I mean, I am not a model role and I >>don't claim to be one. I maintain what I said. The sportman (and a competition >>chessplayer is one) who wants to win a match without playing it is a jerk. In >>Adams' case this is specially clear because, due to *his* *own* connection >>problems, the match was delayed two hours. Note the subtle point: he was not >>forfeited. When Junior runs into the same problems, he claims forfeit. To be >>fair to the truth I don't believe he is the only jerk in the whole story. > >If you put it that way, of course it sounds pretty damning for Adams, but I >think there is more to consider than just the fact that he wasn't forfeited >after a >two-hour delay at his end, etc. I think the ones on this forum who are most >qualified to give their opinions on what happened on that day are the ones >who were directly involved. The rest of us are just going on a load of >incomplete information tinged with personal opinions, and so we have no >right to go up in arms and start calling people "jerks" and "cowards", and >claiming certain people are "afraid" and what have you. We need to know >the complete picture, and we simply haven't got it. And it doesn't solve >the problem anyway. The last thing computer Chess needs is an >acrimonious atmosphere between players and programmers. Isn't it better >just to cool it, find out as much as possible about what happened, and then >work on finding ways to prevent it from happening again? The deed has >been done, and that's that. Let's all look forward to the next time. > >Name calling -- now that really is a clever solution. First of all english is not my langage. I have looked in my dictionnary and "jerk" doesn't appear to be such a strong word, but you could substitute it for "nasty" if I am mistaken and the word is too much. My view on Adams is damning, but it is the way I see it. Your proposal to wait for the facts, in theory, is very good, but in practice, it is naive. Do you think that you have the real facts in every branch of life where someone has an interest? Do you think you know the facts of Clinton-Lewinsky? Or in chess, do you know the real facts of the first Kasparov-Karpov match, or the complete and true facts on Hsu-Kasparov-Williams recent negotiations? It is naive to assume that we will ever know the true facts, because everyone tells what they want to tell and we must assume that. This is an opinion forum, and this is the place to tell our opinions. The DJ forfeiture is a significant event, and we are entitled, in my opinion, to tell what we think about it without waiting forever for a Godot (the true and objective facts) that will never come. Another thing, to be a coward can be more or less pretty, but it is not a crime being one, so I don't see any reason why you should not tell that someone is a coward if you think so. Incidentally, I didn't call Adams a coward, and I don't think he is. I just think he is a bad sportman and had a nasty behaviour. Alvaro > >Mike.
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.