Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 10:10:15 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
I looked in the dictionary too. Whinning=when one does not agree with you. Not Whinning=when one agrees with you. On February 19, 2000 at 12:26:59, Alvaro Polo wrote: >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 0.01 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.