Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 04:50 PM
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Current thoughts on candidates

I am far from decided about how I will fill in my ballot but here are
my current thoughts on the candidates (in order of statements in Chess
Life):

Robert Tanner: Unimpressive statement.

Sam Sloan: Laughable.

Bill Goichberg: Tough Decision. My dealings with him have left a good
impression. Stan's comments have me very concerned. Dubeck's
ranting on the 2006 US Open seem silly.

Greg Shahade: I like his chess accomplishments. I will probably vote
for him if I don't vote for Goichberg.

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.

Elizabeth Shaughnessy: Anyone that Richard Peterson hates can't be
all bad.

Steve Shutt: Seems like a keeper to me.

Randy Bauer: Very impressed. Definitely has my vote.

Joel Channing: Connection to Shultz bothers me due to Schultz
connection with Parr and Sloan. Also the fact that he wants to
negotiate with Schiller whose willingness to put his name on absolute
crap books offends me.

Vince Hart

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 07:12 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vince Hart wrote:

[SNIP]

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.


IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:

1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.

2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.

3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.

4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 07:25 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

An unnamed source who is usually reliable alleges that so far Schutt and
Bauer are leading by a wide margin. Shaughnessy comes next, then somewhat
further down Channing, Shahade, and Tanner are neck and neck. In the final
tier are Goichberg, Sloan, and John.


"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ps.com...
I am far from decided about how I will fill in my ballot but here are
my current thoughts on the candidates (in order of statements in Chess
Life):

Robert Tanner: Unimpressive statement.

Sam Sloan: Laughable.

Bill Goichberg: Tough Decision. My dealings with him have left a good
impression. Stan's comments have me very concerned. Dubeck's
ranting on the 2006 US Open seem silly.

Greg Shahade: I like his chess accomplishments. I will probably vote
for him if I don't vote for Goichberg.

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.

Elizabeth Shaughnessy: Anyone that Richard Peterson hates can't be
all bad.

Steve Shutt: Seems like a keeper to me.

Randy Bauer: Very impressed. Definitely has my vote.

Joel Channing: Connection to Shultz bothers me due to Schultz
connection with Parr and Sloan. Also the fact that he wants to
negotiate with Schiller whose willingness to put his name on absolute
crap books offends me.

Vince Hart



  #4   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 07:35 PM
Bruce Leverett
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The real problem seems to be, that George cannot reply to a 1-sentence
put-down without writing at least 5 ponderous paragraphs. Hmm, is this
good or bad? Maybe the EB could use someone to slow it down? :-)

George John wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

[SNIP]

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.


IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:

1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.

2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.

3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.

4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John


  #5   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 07:48 PM
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default



George John wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

[SNIP]

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.


IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:

1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.


The mate has to be produced by a legal move. The game continues.


2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.


Mate ends the game. When you are dealing with players who are so weak
as to overlook a checkmate, any other player should realize that he
cannot rely on the likelihood of a particular result.

3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.


If the next round has not been paired, I would say the result should be
reversed.


4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

[SNIP]


Reverse the result as a penalty for getting the move from someone else.


Best regards,

George John




  #6   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 08:37 PM
Grant Perks
 
Posts: n/a
Default

These aren't the same pollsters that predicted Kerry would win Ohio are
they?

I see Shaughnessy, Bauer, Goichberg as shoe-ins. I agree with your
unnamed source on the rest.

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 08:42 PM
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default

StanB wrote (Wed, 8 Jun 2005
14:25:15 -0400):

An unnamed source who is usually reliable
alleges that so far Schutt and Bauer are
leading by a wide margin. Shaughnessy
comes next, then somewhat further down
Channing, Shahade, and Tanner are neck
and neck. In the final tier are Goichberg,
Sloan, and John.


_
"Petersen, Schultz, and Wagner have
it sewed up. Next Bea whose Scholastic
goombahs will get her close. Then Sloan.
Tim who?" - StanB (Thu, 30 Jan 2003
23:52:51 -0500)
_
"There may be a few ballots that still
arrive tomorrow (only about 7 arrived
today) that will alter the counts a
little, but here are the results of the
election:
_
Marinello 1007
Hanke 886
Schultz 867
Wagner 704
Sloan 653
Petersen 598" - Mike Nolan
(16 Jul 2003 23:37:33 GMT)

  #8   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 08:52 PM
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default



George John wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

[SNIP]

George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
doesn't end the game.


IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.


How about this: I cannot vote for someone who sometimes thinks that
checkmate doesn't end the game.


I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:


I don't see any of these as big problem for the principle that
checkmate ends the game.


1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.


As I understand the rules, if the move that produced the mate was
illegal, then there was no mate. If it was the move before that, then
the mate stands.



2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.


If White saw the mate on move 25, but played on in order to toy with
his opponent or to mislead a competing player, I would be comfortable
penalizing him for unsportsmanlike conduct. IMHO The game still ended
upon the checkmate.


If we are dealing with players who have difficulty recognizing
checkmate, then I doubt that any position can be considered clearly
winning or clearly losing, and no player in another game should
reasonably rely on the likelihood of a particular outcome.



3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.


If the next round has not been paired, then I would reverse the result.
If the next round has been pair, then it may be more fair to impose a
penalty for failure to properly report the result. IMHO The game still
ended upon the checkmate.



4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.


Penalize the player for receiving assistance. IMHO The game still
ended upon the checkmate.



[SNIP]

Best regards,

George John


  #9   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 08:57 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vince Hart wrote:
George John wrote:


[SNIP]

1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.


The mate has to be produced by a legal move. The game continues.


The move which produced checkmate is legal if one ignores the fact a
prior illegal move had been made. If you think the position should be
reset to the one immediately before the illegal move was made, and the
game continues, I very much agree, but not all people do.

2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.


Mate ends the game. When you are dealing with players who are so weak
as to overlook a checkmate, any other player should realize that he
cannot rely on the likelihood of a particular result.


I don't disagree with this on its face, but I am somewhat uncomfortable
with some of the possible implications.

What if the player continues playing with the knowledge he has produced
mate? Is a player obliged to point out mate when it occurs (I think
they are)? Or, can they continue to play for "fun" (or other, possibly
more sinister reasons) safe in the knowledge they can claim mate
whenever they like should the game go "bad"?

What if strong players are involved in a wildly mad time scramble (but
are keeping score) in the 40/2 part of the game, and somehow overlook
the mate (unlikely but not impossible), and much later (say 25 moves
later) one of them mentally plays back the game to verify the score is
correct, spots the mate, and doesn't say anything at that time (I think
they should regardless if it's to their advantage or not).

3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.


If the next round has not been paired, I would say the result should be
reversed.


This response makes it even more critical why we often state in our
tournament rules that once the results are turned in they stand (except
for major ethical violations like cheating). The result of games
should never be overturned as a result of post game analysis. Once the
players have agreed to a result and turned in a score, the result
should stand (assuming no cheating, etc.).


4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

[SNIP]


Reverse the result as a penalty for getting the move from someone else.


This one is the clear "exception", IMO. A sufficiently major ethical
violation trumps all other rules including the "mate ends the game"
rule, and this is most definitely one of them.

Here's a related question, is a player obliged to point out his or her
opponent's overlooked mate? I think they are.

Best regards,

George John

  #10   Report Post  
Old June 8th 05, 09:33 PM
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My apologies George. I tried to delete my prior response because I did
not feel in adequately addressed your points. Apparently I did not get
it deleted quickly enough.

Vince Hart

George John wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
George John wrote:


[SNIP]

1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
*immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
illegal move.


The mate has to be produced by a legal move. The game continues.


The move which produced checkmate is legal if one ignores the fact a
prior illegal move had been made. If you think the position should be
reset to the one immediately before the illegal move was made, and the
game continues, I very much agree, but not all people do.

2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.


Mate ends the game. When you are dealing with players who are so weak
as to overlook a checkmate, any other player should realize that he
cannot rely on the likelihood of a particular result.


I don't disagree with this on its face, but I am somewhat uncomfortable
with some of the possible implications.

What if the player continues playing with the knowledge he has produced
mate? Is a player obliged to point out mate when it occurs (I think
they are)? Or, can they continue to play for "fun" (or other, possibly
more sinister reasons) safe in the knowledge they can claim mate
whenever they like should the game go "bad"?

What if strong players are involved in a wildly mad time scramble (but
are keeping score) in the 40/2 part of the game, and somehow overlook
the mate (unlikely but not impossible), and much later (say 25 moves
later) one of them mentally plays back the game to verify the score is
correct, spots the mate, and doesn't say anything at that time (I think
they should regardless if it's to their advantage or not).

3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
result should be reversed.


If the next round has not been paired, I would say the result should be
reversed.


This response makes it even more critical why we often state in our
tournament rules that once the results are turned in they stand (except
for major ethical violations like cheating). The result of games
should never be overturned as a result of post game analysis. Once the
players have agreed to a result and turned in a score, the result
should stand (assuming no cheating, etc.).


4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

[SNIP]


Reverse the result as a penalty for getting the move from someone else.


This one is the clear "exception", IMO. A sufficiently major ethical
violation trumps all other rules including the "mate ends the game"
rule, and this is most definitely one of them.

Here's a related question, is a player obliged to point out his or her
opponent's overlooked mate? I think they are.

Best regards,

George John


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposed Candidate's Statement for June Chess Life - Please Comment Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 198 April 18th 05 09:27 PM
Proposed Candidate's Statement for June Chess Life - Please Comment Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 198 April 18th 05 09:27 PM
Candidate's Statement for the June Chess Life (500 words exactly) Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 47 April 18th 05 07:08 PM
Candidate's Statement for the June Chess Life (500 words exactly) Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 49 April 18th 05 07:08 PM
Cluster Chess Thoughts news1.adelphia.net rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 January 20th 04 05:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017