| |
Main
Date: 02 Oct 2006 04:07:57
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Forfeit wins - an inconsistancy
|
As you all know, Topolov received a forfeit win on game 5 as Kramnik did
not show up. I personally do not think that is the right decision, but
let us assume for a moment that it is.
i.e.
No-show - > Forfeit win for opponent
To be consistent, if one player fails to show up for another game or
games, his opponent should receive a forfeit win again. Yet Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov has stated there no continuation of the match unless a
compromise is reached.
http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1014
IF the organisers believe it was correct to award the win to Topolov for
one no-show, why not for 7 no-shows? That would at least be consistent.
(Wrong in my opinion, but at least consistent).
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 12:49:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Forfeit wins - an inconsistancy
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> As you all know, Topolov received a forfeit win on game 5 as Kramnik
> did not show up. I personally do not think that is the right
> decision, but let us assume for a moment that it is.
>
> i.e.
> No-show -> Forfeit win for opponent
>
> To be consistent, if one player fails to show up for another game or
> games, his opponent should receive a forfeit win again. Yet Kirsan
> Ilyumzhinov has stated there no continuation of the match unless a
> compromise is reached.
The later games have been postponed. Therefore, there was no game on
Saturday; therefore, nobody could forfeit a game on Saturday.
> IF the organisers believe it was correct to award the win to Topolov
> for one no-show, why not for 7 no-shows? That would at least be
> consistent. (Wrong in my opinion, but at least consistent).
At the point when game 5 started, the organizers had not come to an
agreement with the players to postpone the game. Therefore, the game
was due to be played and subject to forfeit. Since then, the
organizers have come to an agreement so the games was postponed.
I don't see that there's an issue here, at least with respect to
consistency.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but it's twice
as fast!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 15:02:15
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Forfeit wins - an inconsistancy
|
David Richerby wrote:
> The later games have been postponed. Therefore, there was no game on
> Saturday; therefore, nobody could forfeit a game on Saturday.
Valid point.
I'm more than a little surprised Kramnik played today. I guess he would
be happier with the draw than what Topolov will be.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
