Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
It was a very good game that Phil mentions a few posts ago, shortish on quality but certainly not in excitement and action, especially in the time scramble. I enjoyed it very much despite finishing on the losing side.
Twenty odd pages on another thread plus the present one on this motion ! That seems a lot but it isn't when you consider that this important motion could have a bearing on every player, event and venue in Scotland. CS members and non-members on this noticeboard have an opportunity to contribute to a motion that is being drawn up for the good of chess in Scotland.
Let's try and keep focused on issues directly concerned with players with disabilities. I totally accept that some players may have grievances about past pairings but if it does not concern a player with a disability then I feel it should be on another thread.
Posts: 207
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
1
From what I understand you were both in the wrong
One for starting it
The other for not following the ruling of the arbiter(who made a judgement call-) and also ironically refusing to play r4 and potentially influencing the winner
Life is too short .. Shake hands and move on
Once bitten twice shy- I'm sure arbiters will not be so accommodating to either position if it happens again rule or no rule
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Just to be clear, Alex doesn't mean the game between Phil and myself.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
The Largs congress was where Phil and I played the highly enjoyable game he refers to.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
This debate needs to be on this thread. The form of words coming through from FIDE is not workable.
Lets look again
2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired.
CS can not divide chess players into two categories. Disabled and able boded and then give extra extra rights to the disabled.
That route leads to potential discrimination against able bodied players.
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
*Sigh*
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
[quote="David Deary"]Phil, by all means ignore my point. If the motion goes forward to the first council meeting in November with the addition of the very seperate issue of 'players refusing to play against a correctly paired opponent' then I will vote for the motion to go back to the drawing board and be split into two motions. I don't like different issues being paperclipped onto the one motion. This would result in a delay until the following council meeting in March 2015. I don't think splitting it into a seperate motion is in any way an unreasonable request. END OF QUOTE
A delay until March 2015 would not be necessary.
Council could simply vote on which of the 2 suggested wordings they prefer for this section. Which one is an amendment to the motion and which one is the original is rather irrelevant
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Alex Gillies Wrote:robin moore Wrote:Just to be clear, Alex doesn't mean the game between Phil and myself.
That's the game in Oban Phil seems to be referring to unless I am mistaken
Alex you are mistaken.
What happened in Oban??
Please explain - I am baffled.
I have played there several times.
I have arbited there at least twice
