He reacted to accusations by Dave (schiemann) of inappropriate chess
playing behavior, and so, decided to resign many games, and some
without ever making a move. Dave pointed the finger at him and
Gilbert (sintubin) caved by resigning games.
I personally would never have done that. I would have simply told
Dave where he could find sunlight, and that I was sorry to find out that
he was so full himself. And that if he was the better player he would
reach the top, that his mouth wouldn't be of any real help. But that is
me. Gil is his own person, so his reaction was different, and probably
because Dave and Gil appeared to be friends. So, Gil's reaction was
most likely the result of being hurt. Mine reaction would have been
out of anger, friend or not.
I played Gilbert twice and never, ever got the feeling he was using
chess playing software to help with moves or was cheating in any other
way. I lost one game and drew the other - they were both hard
fought. I enjoyed the games very much, not the losing part, but the
strong play by Gil pointed vividly to my own weaknesses, ones I did
not have in the '80s. My games with Gil have helped me become a
stronger player.
Currently Dave has an unearned position at the top. I can only hope
that he is happy with his position.
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
I have to disagree with one statement you make (I could disagree
with a lot more, but I will refrain). I disagree with your calling Dave's
spot at the top "unearned." That's ridiculous. Dave is in the top spot
because he has the most points. And he earned every single one of
those points. The fact that Gil chose to resign so many games was
his decision to make.
Let's use a (probably weak) analogy here-- you're driving a race car in
the Daytona 500. You are in second place when the car in the lead
drops out of the race (the reason doesn't matter), because essentially
Gil dropped out of the race, or perhaps more accurately, he
intentionally dropped himself down the ladder. Now, in the race car
analogy, was the win "unearned"? NO. Because you have to be there
in second place to be able to take over the lead.
I might also reiterate what Dave has stated before (and I believe him,
honestly)-- I don't think Dave really gives a rat's ass about being #1.
I bet if RHP eliminated the ratings system completely and made it
a "fun only" site, Dave would still play here-- because of the people.
Why do I keep finding myself posting replies, when every day I vow to
stay out of it?
Tim
Disagree as you wish. The fact is Gil would have still been at the top
had he not thrown away games.
Your analogy about auto racing is very weak - a lot money, time and
effort goes into auto racing and if the driver all of a sudden decides
he does not want to compete honestly in the event, then he does not
belong in auto racing. Any driver, who pulls a stunt like that, throwing
away all the time and effort put forth by all in the group, would be
fired. A driver has a contractual obligation to perform his best. Gil
has an obligation to play his best. To do anything less only hurts
RHP, in that others, such as myself, may decide to find sites more
dedicated to the game of chess.
Interesting view, that Dave's spot at 1 is unearned because Gil would
have had more points had he not resigned his games. By parity of
reasoning I guess prior to Gil's resignations his spot was also
unearned, in that Xenophobe, had he remained and continued to play
at his usual rate., would have had more points currently than Gil.
Xenophobe made a decision to leave RHP, and the top spot became
Gil's shortly thereafter. Gil made a decision to resign his games, and
the top spot became Dave's shortly thereafter. Whoever is at number
1 and arrives there fairly (without programs, figging, targeting weak
players with boosted ratings, etc) deserves the position. You may
claim that Dave, in effect, did not arrive there fairly, in that Gil's
resignations were precipitated by Dave's accusations. Fair enough, but
Gil was not forced to resign, and I'm not sure what good it did him
(accept to give him some peace). Let's say, hypothetically, that Gil
didn't resign his games, just let them timeout. Would Dave deserve
the top spot then? Alternatively, let's suppose that Gil resigned his
games because he wanted to immediately embark across Europe by
foot, and would be unable to play henceforth. Would Dave not
deserve the top spot under these circumstances? Gil made a choice to
resign, he was not strictly caused to resign, and there is a difference.
I think what you really mean is that IF the number one rating was a
perfect barometer of ability, then Gil is the one that deserves the top
spot. But, of course, this is just false. The number one rating is not a
perfect barometer of ability, nor was it designed to be. So, it seems
that your claim that Dave's number one spot is undeserved is either
trivially true (and applies equally to Gil) or just confused, because you
mistake ratings as good indicators.
Bennett
I agree. Using the RHP rating to find out which one is better than the
other doesn't make any sense to me. If two people want to find out
who's the better one they should play ten games in a row and count
the direct points. If one of them is cheating then at least the "winner"
knows that he plays worse chess than the "looser".
Gotti
This would absolutely be true...I was very happy being in the 2nd
spot...This was not about being #1...it was about the truth.
I already have stated I would have never said what I did if I did not
know for sure of what I was saying was the truth.
If you all who are slamming on me are fine with someone who lies to
you then fine...that crap just does not sit well on my plate...I kept my
mouth shut on this issue for a very long time but it was something
that had to be done.
Thanks Tim for the good analogy...and Ed...well...for someone who
has emailed me with their thoughts of who is using a program on
here...well...you know...keep swinging...they hurt a little but when the
day is over all that will still be left is the fact that I told the truth and
the people that were caught didn't like it.
Dave
Dave,
It is a fact that I mentioned to you my suspicions concerning the use
of chess playing software by some players when making my game
reports to you in the ROW vs. USA tournament. But without proof that
can be provided to all, my thoughts simply remain suspicions, and
therefore should not be placed in a public forum. You may notice I
have made no accusations about anyone using chess playing software
in the forums.
Being as intelligent as you are, I’m sure you understand the
difference private and public.