"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:
Or you could try looking for a GM with poor logical reasoning skills -
but do you really think that is likely to work?

Well, there's Yasser Seirawan's recent Chessbase article where he
seems to think that Gurt Gijssen's failure to publicly blame anyone
for `toiletgate' means that Gijssen believes that nobody is to blame
for anything in the whole world. Does that count?

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3441

Guert Gijssen is the dude who brought as the 'no note taking rule' which
then requires an arbiter to determine what happened OTB without the benefit
of the score sheet.

In the instance of Elista, he was responsible for administering rules - and
if he did not agree with them, he could have quit. But in terms of his
existing responsibilities, he needed to monitor the activity of Kramnik, who
left the stage very frequently. Bu the couldn't put his foot down and ask
him not to, nor assess if an absent chessplayer was important to the other
player in a world championship.

It is unpopular to side with Topalov, but Gijssen agreed to be paid for
administering rules which are very odd, and secondly, without complaint, to
having them changed on him by political appointed chess committee.

When I previously asked here how some of these new arbiter determined
rulings were actually to take place, no one had any answer other than the
anodyne 'by best judgement'.

Conduct at Elista was by worst judgement.

Phil Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Evil Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers
but
it's genuinely evil and totally
weird!