Most of these arguments have NOTHING to do with Legal Moves
Posted By: Art Grater In Response To: Most of these arguments have NOTHING to do with Legal Moves (phil simborg)
Date: Friday, 14 March 2014, at 11:17 p.m.
In Response To: Most of these arguments have NOTHING to do with Legal Moves (phil simborg)
1. I was referring specifically to the case where a novice and a Giant have an honest difference of opinion on whether the move was legal. There's nothing the Giant can do to help the novice because they have a different recollection. If I had to bet, I would bet the Giant was correct and the novice got it wrong. But that might be wrong, since Giants make mistakes as well. With NLM, some of that uncertainty vanishes. And the less uncertainty there is, the less ill feelings there are. Would you want to be a novice who is SURE you are correct and then be overruled. Even as a Giant or near-Giant, you don't want to be overruled when you KNOW you are correct.
2. There are MANY reasons to use cups instead of hand tossing. And many reasons to use a box as well. But ONE of those reasons is that you are less worried about your opponent cheating. That's why we frown on using dice that are not translucent. Opaque dice can be balanced perfectly, but let's face it, we don't trust them.
So it comes down to that we are sending the message we take special care that you won't cheat with dice, but we will trust you with spotting mistakes even if that hurts you.
3. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't accept misinformed premature resignations (we pretty much ALL accept informed ones). But I would not call cheat on anyone who does, so long as they do so in a consistent manner. My point is that we shouldn't selectively pick some chess rules and ignore others if we are going to say use that game as the gold standard. Or Scrabble and many others.
4. I DID help them, but the help was one-way. It's a sticky problem. If someone has a low I.Q. or stroke do you accept their poor plays or help them so much you're playing against themselves. I'm not taking a position on that, just saying it's a problem.
But this person was unknown to me. How do I know they really had trouble seeing the dice? 98% or 99% of their moves were fine (probably more than mine, LOL). I am not an ophthalmologist; I just needed spell-check to use that word.
We are in total agreement that the TD's rules should be followed. I am not suggesting anyone not follow LM rules in a LM-mandatory tournament. I'm proposing not using LM-mandatory in the first place. That's why I was asking why any LM proponent would revert to NLM if their opponent is not playing LM. What is your position on that? If your opponent doesn't point out your misplays that help them, would you follow suit? If the answer is "yes", you have some 'splaining to do.
If the majority of U.S. players now wants LM, then LM SHOULD be the DEFAULT. If the majority wants NLM, then that should be. You've made the case I should follow the rules -- though that case didn't need to be made -- but you haven't made the case of why the rules should not allow flexibility for two players who travel a long way to have a good time and prefer to play NLM in THEIR match. I recently drew another player who also prefers NLM, and there we were having less fun playing LM for no good reason. Since WE decide what's fund for US, it was ridiculous. LM proponents can demand everyone play their way whether they want to or not, but I always thought compromise was a big part of sportsmanship.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.