| |
BGonline.org Forums
lynch law in Chicago?
Posted By: Michel Lamote
Date: Wednesday, 8 June 2016, at 6:26 p.m.
Hi, I am Michel Lamote, the Belgian guy who cynically attempted to exploit his opponent's (Steve B.) bad clock management to win a match at the Tournament of Champions in Chicago on Thursday 26 May 2016.
Here's a funny, but relevant, anecdote : at 4-away 1-away Cr., Steve (leading) pointed out to me that I was low on time. I had about 2'30" left. I thanked him for his concern, but added that I was fully aware of my remaining time and that he need not concern himself with that. He said : "Yes, but I would not want to win that way, by you losing on time". I replied : "Know what? I would not have any scruples about that. If you lose on time, it is your own responsibility".
So we played on in a pleasant enough atmosphere. When I won an undoubled gammon, however, we both started to sense the gravity of the situation and grew slightly more tense. Now I made a bad mistake : Steve won the opening roll with a 6x, making a big split and I ... did not double. For some reason I had suffered a lapse in concentration thinking the score was 2-away 2-away, instead of 2-away 1-away post-Cr. I rolled boxes, double-hitting, and of course Steve was happily relieved when I doubled him out after he came in with 2 men.
Of course I mentally beat myself up for that blunder (off by 0,070), but in situations like that I recall Churchill's famous adage : "One blunder is seldom fatal", and try to re-focus. I was very low on time by then (18" left) so I played on gut feeling and soon found myself closed out with 4" left on my clock. I could not have had more than 5% winning chances...
Suddenly, however, my opponent starts executing his moves without pushing his clock. Up to that moment, he had betrayed not the least lack of familiarity with the clock. Not once did I have to remind him to push his clock and from his composure and general level of play I had long deducted that he was a skilled and experienced match player. I distictly remember him glancing at his clock ever so briefly (he had 1'30" left) and ... playing on. I knew that, as a courtesy, I could have reminded him to push his clock, but was fully unaware that I was obliged to do so by the rules. I cannot imagine a chess player having to point out to his opponent that he is about to run out of time. So, I let it happen. As long as he did not push his clock, his turn had not ended, so I saw it as my discretion to remain silent. Steve played on, spent quite some time on certain moves (hit a 2nd and 3rd checker or not?), and eventually clocked out.
When I confronted him with that fact, he turned pale (figuratively), pondered his predicament for some time, then acquiesced, got up and started to walk away. He showed not the least signs of indignation.
Unfortunately for me, a (partisan?) kibitzer had run up to the TD to report what he had witnessed and some time later my win was declared null and void. I was utterly perplexed. To me that was simply im-poss-ible. The guy lost on time. Just as I had made a grievous error at 2-away 1-away pCr by not doubling right away, he had suffered a colossal lapse in concentration by forgetting his clock. This is a well-documented phenomenon in sports psychology : with victory imminent, players can get momentarily stunned by impending success and dramatically lose focus. This is what happened to Steve and in my opinion he should have suffered the consequences. Clock management has become an integral part of the set of skills required to play the game and forgetting your clock altogether is a gross blunder. Luckily for my opponent, however, a deus ex machina appeared in the shape of a missionary TD.
I consider this ruling a corruption of what sports is about. If, when I am running a marathon and about to finish second, the guy in front of me starts throwing kisses at the crowd and slips over a banana skin, I am not going to help him up and magnanimously escort him to the finish line. If, in a boxing contest, my opponent is leading on points in round 15 and winks at a girl in the crowd, I am not going to refrain from knocking him out because "I do not want to win in that fashion". If I want to demonstrate my moral rectitude, I will step outside and help old ladies cross the street, not play backgammon.
By the way, I did ask for a ruling committee. I asked the TD who was on it and he said : "Neil Kazaross, Carol Joy Cole and X" (I forgot). Not one of these persons was present at the time. Nor was the list of those persons posted at the TD's desk. I expressly said that I was willing to be disqualified from the tournament (for questionable gamesmanship, or what have you), but that I would not have the match result invalidated. In the end, after repeated pleadings by the TD, I gave in, played two more matches and eventually saw myself eliminated with 2 out of 5.
Since this ruling was made without the consultation of an official Ruling Committee and could easily have been different with another TD, it is in my view arbitrary at best. Moreover, since the ruling appears to be based on a multi-interpretable set of brittle rules, I cannot help but feeling robbed. If this had happened at the Nordic, for instance, the TD would have called together a pre-appointed Ruling Committee and I could have more easily accepted the verdict and, when given, the admonishment. As it is, I am incapable of shedding the feeling that I have fallen victim to some form of lynch law.
So, I left Chicago on Friday morning. Phil (Simborg) did his utmost to talk me into staying, but I was mentally in shreds and thought I would benefit more from spending some time touring the great states of Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania than from playing backgammon. Phil even offered to pay my entry for the Chicago Open. I wonder ... would Phil do that if he did not think something fishy had happened?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.