Non-biased Legal vs. non-legal moves poll
Posted By: Art Grater In Response To: Non-biased Legal vs. non-legal moves poll (phil simborg)
Date: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, at 9:29 a.m.
In Response To: Non-biased Legal vs. non-legal moves poll (phil simborg)
Thanks, Phil. I haven't said I am going to stop playing LM -- I'm planning on both major LA events this year. But of course I will lean towards NLM events over LM. Anyone who says to vote with your wallet shouldn't be surprised when that happens.
So far, I'm not impressed with the rule. At one tournament, I played LM and my opponent didn't. That wasn't much fun. And I'm also not impressed with the vitriol displayed by a very few here who refuse to accept that playing NLM in a NLM tournament is not unethical.
It's not clear to me how sustainable the rule is over the long haul. But IF it IS sustainable, and IF it attracts new players, then fine. But there is no necessity to make EVERY tournament LM. And certainly not any necessity to disallow two players to consent to NLM. You've previously given some reasons why two players can't consent, but they seem to me as reasons that follow a decision instead of preceding it.
I make more illegal moves than I should. I WANT to be penalized for that. It's the best way to learn, at least for me. I don't want to get time added back to my clock as a reward for playing illegally. And if I miss your illegal play in a LM event (after you missed it too), I don't want Internet nannies second-guessing that I missed it intentionally.
>To people like Neil who think it is disgusting to win a match because a guy accidently left his checker on the bar.
No problem. In NLM, Neil can simply allow his opponent to enter the checker.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.