Just one more argument for Legal Moves
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Just one more argument for Legal Moves (Art Grater)
Date: Monday, 4 November 2013, at 4:46 p.m.
In Response To: Just one more argument for Legal Moves (Art Grater)
I believe that I am the only poster to have responded to the scenario you described with any kind of solution. I'm sorry therefore that, like Mary, you clearly think my solution ridiculous. Mary stated that she would hope, IRL, that a TD would find another solution (not involving draws and shared points). Clearly, adopting LM would avoid it in the first place, but I know you prefer the ABT rule. (Personally, I can take or leave either rule.)
If the subsequent double close-out situation is defined as a stalemate/draw, and sharing the cube value brings the player whose misplay created the logjam to the required match winning score, then clearly the opponent will make him play legally! So, my solution WOULD WORK in that instance, in the absence of LM.
If instead, the shared points (perhaps counting it as a mutual bg - as UBK queries - perhaps not) bring the opponent who condoned the play to match, then that is certainly going to encourage non-sloppy play in future from the unfortunate recipient! And you have stated that you do believe in this general notion. (It is clearly true that not playing LM encourages players to pay attention to what they're doing, and this would be the most extreme example.)
If instead, the game would simply be called off with no points awarded, then if the opponent condoned the play that is still a pretty severe penalty for making the misplay, and discouraging sloppiness! But it wouldn't progress the match (score).
In the absence of LM what do you think should happen?
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.