![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
It seems the other thread begins with the premise that a change is needed to avoid short draws,while this thread attempts to start one step earlier and ask if players generally think that a change is needed.
The question I'm posing is very specific and in the case of a "No" winning would ask later why a change would be needed.
Do you think that the game natmaku vs keoki010 1/2 - 1/2 (in 11moves) was waste of time and/or a slap in the face?
Available options:
Yes.
No.
Please vote in this thread by making a reply or send the vote by private message (so it remains anonymous.)
The question I'm posing is very specific and in the case of a "No" winning would ask later why a change would be needed.
Do you think that the game natmaku vs keoki010 1/2 - 1/2 (in 11moves) was waste of time and/or a slap in the face?
Available options:
Yes.
No.
Please vote in this thread by making a reply or send the vote by private message (so it remains anonymous.)
ya estamos con los anonimos?y ya estamos otra vez yendo contra lo que otros opinan?lo tuyo que es,ir contra todo el mundo o que?porque es lo que demuestras...y esta vez no vas contra mi,sino contra Garvin
This is the closest I have from a spanish to english translation, it does not make much sense but I think I can work out the gist of it:
we are the anonymous? and we are again going against what others think? what yours is, go against the whole world or what? because it is what you demonstrate ... and this time do not go against me but against Garvin
we are the anonymous? and we are again going against what others think? what yours is, go against the whole world or what? because it is what you demonstrate ... and this time do not go against me but against Garvin
a very close translation Garvin...the first phrase is better translated by ''we are again with the anonymous?'' is the same than ''we are again with the same thing''?or ''we are again with the same bussiness''?all of that means the same,insist again with the same thing...in general terms,means that Uly seems to be against the whole world...now against you,and against what you told about wasting your time with that quick draws and about the 'slap in the face' (or something similar that you told)
what i mean is Uly seems to play the rule 'devil advocate' but against the whole world
what i mean is Uly seems to play the rule 'devil advocate' but against the whole world
I'm not going against anybody, if Yes wins the vote it's clear that a change is needed, we'd just need to agree on what change.
Optional anonymous voting also makes sense, for people that don't want to state their opinions openly but still with their vote to count.
Optional anonymous voting also makes sense, for people that don't want to state their opinions openly but still with their vote to count.
you and your 'devil advocates'
who asked you to start that thread?and even if wins 'no',it means that is better the 'no'?
as far as i know,Garvin is the arbiter,and he has as easy as if people doesnt want his rules,he can stop being our arbiter...do you think about all the work he is doing for us?and how he feel about 'wasting' his time with that 'fast draws'?or you only take care about your own interest?
and i preffer a lot him like arbiter,than that fast draws
or you preffer the fast draws slaping on Garvin face (like Garving said and stated he feel it)?please,answer me that question,dont evade it
who asked you to start that thread?and even if wins 'no',it means that is better the 'no'?
as far as i know,Garvin is the arbiter,and he has as easy as if people doesnt want his rules,he can stop being our arbiter...do you think about all the work he is doing for us?and how he feel about 'wasting' his time with that 'fast draws'?or you only take care about your own interest?
and i preffer a lot him like arbiter,than that fast draws
or you preffer the fast draws slaping on Garvin face (like Garving said and stated he feel it)?please,answer me that question,dont evade it
No offense Barnard, but I doubt Garvin wants you "defending" him, he can get along just fine by himself.
If No wins then there's nothing clear, I still think the general opinion of the players should be known, as in the other thread I only saw suggestions on how to fix "the problem", without the option of keeping things the same. Also, besides you, on this thread, all people are voting No. I'll add my No vote.
If No wins then there's nothing clear, I still think the general opinion of the players should be known, as in the other thread I only saw suggestions on how to fix "the problem", without the option of keeping things the same. Also, besides you, on this thread, all people are voting No. I'll add my No vote.
maybe Garvin doesnt need that i defend him,but in the same case,players doesnt need that you always plays the ''devils advocate'' rule,opening that type of threads to start speaking for them
you evaded answering my question Uly
>or you preffer the fast draws slaping on Garvin face (like Garving said and stated he feel it)?please,answer me that question,dont evade it
you evaded answering my question Uly
> opening that type of threads to start speaking for them
I'm not speaking for anybody in this thread but myself, and am asking other people about their opinion, nothing more. Please calm down.
>or you preffer the fast draws slaping on Garvin face (like Garving said and stated he feel it)?please,answer me that question,dont evade it
you are still evading my question...
and im asking you a simply question,and you are evading answering me because the answer isnt of your interest
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
please gentleman.Both of you calm down.
Garvin has no intention of stepping down as arbitrator and just expressed his opinion(that he was unhappy to see a 11 move draw) and asked us what we thought.
Uly then asked us, the players what we thought in a yes or no post.
As you can see the majority of us could not care less.
If players wish to agree to an early draw thats up to them and gives them less chance of winning tournament.
dont misinterpret this that i am i favour of early draws.I am not.
My 2 cents.
Garvin has no intention of stepping down as arbitrator and just expressed his opinion(that he was unhappy to see a 11 move draw) and asked us what we thought.
Uly then asked us, the players what we thought in a yes or no post.
As you can see the majority of us could not care less.
If players wish to agree to an early draw thats up to them and gives them less chance of winning tournament.
dont misinterpret this that i am i favour of early draws.I am not.
My 2 cents.
thanks for your message Paul
as always,plenty of smart words
i never told Garvin has intention of stepping down as arbiter,i just told if he feels we are wasting his time with that fast draws,and that are a 'slap on his face',i agree with him,and if he feels that,we are at risk he doest that,just was my 2 cents
appart from that,y really dislike that 'fast draws',without any fight,and all the pieces on the board;we are playing chess,not painting our nails to agree draws in 11 moves with all the pieces!
so i think applying the sofia rules to the tournament,and even more,disqualifying the players that agree that 'fast draws' to achieve any prize,that ''fast draws'' will dissapear from our tournament,be sure...we play for fun,so agree that type of draws is even dishonest from the point of view that breaks the spirit of the WBCCC,and the fraternity that must be between all the players
my 2 cents...i can be criticized or applauded;i dont mind,im being honest with myself,and that is the most important for me
as always,plenty of smart words
i never told Garvin has intention of stepping down as arbiter,i just told if he feels we are wasting his time with that fast draws,and that are a 'slap on his face',i agree with him,and if he feels that,we are at risk he doest that,just was my 2 cents
appart from that,y really dislike that 'fast draws',without any fight,and all the pieces on the board;we are playing chess,not painting our nails to agree draws in 11 moves with all the pieces!
so i think applying the sofia rules to the tournament,and even more,disqualifying the players that agree that 'fast draws' to achieve any prize,that ''fast draws'' will dissapear from our tournament,be sure...we play for fun,so agree that type of draws is even dishonest from the point of view that breaks the spirit of the WBCCC,and the fraternity that must be between all the players
my 2 cents...i can be criticized or applauded;i dont mind,im being honest with myself,and that is the most important for me
i think Garvin or maybe someone else said there was no prize money in this tournament.That is incorrect there is at least $600+ in prize money.
i know is incorrect;in fact,i never mentioned that in my post Paul
i just said something different about prizes and people agreeing 'fast draws'
i just said something different about prizes and people agreeing 'fast draws'
I know you never said it,and i dislike quick draws as much as you.The winning trophy is the main thing,however i believe players who try really hard should be rewarded if only in a small way.
>i believe players who try really hard should be rewarded if only in a small way
should be interesting,and im not speaking about money (not only the money is interesting in this life!) create something like '1 prize for brilliancy' every round,to the game more inspired and more interesting...and at the end of the tournament,1 of those games,will win the 1 prize for the tournament
i know people will fight if their game is better than the other player game,but not being money involved,im sure they wont fight a lot
this could be a good idea and without disturbing prize money as set as present.
I am willing to put up $50 for best game of each dual round(not much i know but at least something)
but only if you agree with my arbiiter.
Kappatoo would be the arbiter.
i have not asked him on this but trust me when i say he is very strong player and certainlly stronger i believe than certain otb GM's that both turbojuice and myself have dealt with in the past.
I am willing to put up $50 for best game of each dual round(not much i know but at least something)
but only if you agree with my arbiiter.
Kappatoo would be the arbiter.
i have not asked him on this but trust me when i say he is very strong player and certainlly stronger i believe than certain otb GM's that both turbojuice and myself have dealt with in the past.
you are soo generous Paul
i agree with the arbiter
edit:and i agree the idea being him the arbiter,with or without money being involved
i agree with the arbiter
edit:and i agree the idea being him the arbiter,with or without money being involved
just hope he reads this and agrees.Trust me on this Kappa speaks his mind.
what if you send him a pm telling to read this?
i saw it Paul,i saw it
>Trust me on this Kappa speaks his mind
i saw it Paul,i saw it
if players want a 11 move draw good luck to them as they wont be winning jack.
You enter things to win if you have problems playing due to time constraints then drop out.
Life is simple its humans that make it complex.
You enter things to win if you have problems playing due to time constraints then drop out.
Life is simple its humans that make it complex.
I would vote "no". It doesn't bother me in the least. It's their game. their choice. I do think Natmaku threw away his opportunity to score with the White pieces. Black's aim is to draw at first, then if things change and he gets an advantage, then he can go for a win. So I don't blame keoki at all.
No. Simple as that.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
1) It's their time.
2) No.
The draw offer is a detriment to chess and non-existent in other competitive endeavors. Players should be prepared to play the game to its normal conclusion. The game cited was a premature draw, but if chess players do not wish to play chess,, it's their business. I favor no-draw rules in general and letting games take their course; the alternative allows incomplete games.
2) No.
The draw offer is a detriment to chess and non-existent in other competitive endeavors. Players should be prepared to play the game to its normal conclusion. The game cited was a premature draw, but if chess players do not wish to play chess,
, it's their business. I favor no-draw rules in general and letting games take their course; the alternative allows incomplete games.
no,its up to them if they just wish to draw games.
I VOTE YES
is waste of Garvin's time and his effort for us,and of course,a 'slap in his face'
AND OF COURSE,IF WE WANT HIM LIKE ARBITER,WE MUST AGREE WITH HIS NORMS,OR HE SIMPLY CAN DECLINE BE OUR ARBITER,AS SIMPLY AS THAT
and i preffer a lot having him like arbiter,that having players who agree draws so fast,because that 'fast-draws' hurts chess,and i love chess
is waste of Garvin's time and his effort for us,and of course,a 'slap in his face'
AND OF COURSE,IF WE WANT HIM LIKE ARBITER,WE MUST AGREE WITH HIS NORMS,OR HE SIMPLY CAN DECLINE BE OUR ARBITER,AS SIMPLY AS THAT
and i preffer a lot having him like arbiter,that having players who agree draws so fast,because that 'fast-draws' hurts chess,and i love chess
No. It takes two players to agree to a draw, it's their business whether they agree or not, it harms and advantages no one.
+1
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill