Author: Terry Presgrove
Date: 11:56:31 02/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 12:47:06, Amir Ban wrote: >On February 28, 2000 at 22:36:47, Terry Presgrove wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 22:06:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2000 at 21:55:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:30:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:25:29, Derrick Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the this week in chess site, a letter is displayed by michael Adams >>>>>>explaining the circumstances surounding the Deep blue Scandal, It appears that >>>>>>Michael Adams is attempting to shift the blame away from himself, on to the >>>>>>victims, which was Clearly Amir Ban and his partner Shay. I believe this only >>>>>>adds insult to injury, Mr. Adams ought to be ashamed of himself. >>>>> >>>>>Here is the "open letter": >>>>>http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/adams.html >>>> >>>>It sounds to me like Adams was simply "caught in the middle of a bad >>>>situation." It doesn't sound (to me) as though he had any real sort of >>>>agenda to cause a problem... I think that the organizers simply had way too >>>>much incompetence to let the event run smoothly... This kind of nonsense was >>>>inevitable... >>> >>>I think you are right, but I think that Mr. Adams now blames Amir and Shay. A >>>typical example of "blaming the victom" if I ever saw one. I don't think Adams >>>is at fault either. But I do fault his derision of Amir, who was (I think) >>>stuck in the middle far worse than anyone else -- especially considering the >>>outcome. >> >> >> I agree. While Adam's may not be at fault for the forfeit he certainly is >> is not a victim. That solely belongs to the DJ team and computer chess fans >> everywhere. Mig's failure to notify Amir/Shay of an impending forfiet was >> inexcusable. I am not even sure the time sequence of the events lines up with >> Amir's account. > >It doesn't. One thing I managed to understand from Adams' account is that >Bermuda is not at EST but one hour later at GMT-4. This means my timeline and >Mark Crowther's is wrong at several places. So in fact Mig did not offer the >default about 1645 EST, when we were about to start the 2nd game, but at 1600 >EST, i.e. less than 30 minutes after the first game stopped. I now understand >that the 20 minutes delay to start the 2nd game after the draw was concluded at >1640 PM was in fact a timeout by Jarecki and Adams to consider, and when it was >up they decided to insist on the forfeit. To my best knowledge, we and Aviv >knew about the forfeit claim at that point only, though by Adams account Aviv >should have known it an hour earlier. Possibly Aviv did not understand what this >meant the first time he heard it. > >I think it's important to set the record straight, as I and others tried to >reconstruct in detail what happened. Nobody has been lying here, of course, and >in fact there is reasonable agreement between all accounts, and it seems >everybody was trying to be accurate though it was not easy in this case. > >I don't know what this changes in the judgement of these facts. I understand now >that the default was offered and taken up nearly an hour earlier than I thought, >and since the only reason given for it was the "it's getting late" argument, it >only makes it more difficult to understand. This was at a time when Adams could >expect in the normal course of events to be starting the second game, with >perhaps blitz to follow, so why would anyone think this was too late to play ? > >I and Shay made it clear that we don't consider Adams to be the main party at >fault here. He only took what someone offered, but having taken it, he goes too >far in insisting that this was coming to him by right. > >The telling paragraph in his account is "Having thought about the situation I >felt that there should be clarification as to why Deep Junior had not been >forfeited as was stated and asked for an explanation prior to the second game. >Aviv then had a lengthy conversation with Carol Jarecki who fully supported my >position." He does not say why he and Jarecki thought his opponent should be >forfeited, except that this was promised by Mig. > >Amir It seems the more we know the worse it looks on MIG. It is clear tht Mig was under pressure from someone to forfeit Junior, if not Adam's then who?T The "it's getting late" argument is becoming very weak indeed. > > > >Frankly I am somewhat surprised that there has not been more >> outrage at this fiasco than has been manifested. >> >> Tp
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.