On Oct 27, 10:57 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
help bot wrote:

Read what I wrote, moron. The idea of giving
five points for a draw is ridiculous.

As is focusing on an obvious typo (4.90 instead of 0.49)
and going on and with it after the typo was corrected.

Perhaps that would not have been necessary if someone
had not dishonestly SNIPPED my comment, and then
posed a question which ignored what they had deviously
SNIPPED.


I also note that the post you replied to contained the
corrected version.

You claim that I replied to but one post here? That is
still more dishonesty; I have replied to many of these
dishonest postings in this thread, not only one.


Grow up and just admit it when you make such blunders as this one.

I already said that I made a typo, and corrected same.

This is the first time I have seen you admit the error
rather than SNIP something I wrote, and just pretend.
You are making /some/ progress. In your discussions
with others, you seemed to have much less trouble
admitting the error, for some reason.


Let me say it again. I made a typing error. You disagree
with the obvious typo that makes a draw five times better
than a win. We get that. Nobody disagrees with you o that.

Good. There are people here who might go for that,
simply because they are desperate to change the rules
-- or anything for that matter -- in order to break the
boring draw problems of certain grandmasters.


You found a typo. Good for you!

De nada. I got an advertisement in the mail yesterday
from a Dr. Leeberman, selling investment advice; in it I
ran across some half-dozen errors, in spite of the fact
that the whole enchilada had been carefully written by
a "doctor" of whatever, to be mailed out to many tens of
thousands of potential customers. But those were
inconsequential errors, like Sam Sloan's recent
substitution of "bare" for "bear"; yours, OTOH, had the
effect of completely changing the meaning of your
proposal to something ludicrous.
Hey -- maybe I'm mistaken; maybe all that text was
written by a professional copywriter, not a "doctor".
But that is just as bad, for that would mean that they
paid good money to a copywriter, skipped the proof-
reading step, and went to press with all those errors
left in. This is utter incompetence, IMO.


You have also refused,
despite multiple requests, to either plainly state what
your objections are to having the USCF adopt the FIDE
rules for playing chess (organizing tournaments is
another matter) or to plainly state that you have no
objection to having the USCF adopt the FIDE rules for
playing chess.

I believe you are delusional; nowhere have I "refused"
to do that.


It's a simple question. Why won't you
answer?

Perhaps I am not prepared to answer such a question,
having not given the matter much (if any) serious thought.
Lately I have been kept rather busy, just keeping up with
all the snipping and trickery, the dishonest distortions of
my single stated opinion on the matter of game scoring.


Why imply (as you have done above) that there
is something wrong with the idea without saying what?

There is no need to infer implications here, as my
comment was plain enough; I am against the idea of
giving draw-mongers five points -- or 4.9, or 5.1 -- to
a game winner's 1.0 -- or 0.9, or 1.1. I really have no
time or enthusiasm left with which to consider what
ever it was you may have /meant/ to suggest. Maybe
some other time.


-- help bot

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
In an English Swiss[1] the boards and clocks are laid out in advance.

In a typical US Swiss, the players supply board/set/clock.

As I wrote in my next paragraph.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Swiss Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's made in Switzerland and full
of holes!

Kenneth Sloan wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
So, apart from what I understand to be the American tradition of
the players providing the board, pieces and clock (with all the
scope for disagreement that brings), I don't see any real
difference between American and British tournaments.

You are absolutely correct. Except for the differences, they are
the same.

Except for the one difference I have pointed out, they appear to be
the same.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Widget (TM): it's like a thingy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that has mystical powers!