OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**MOZ** · 06-11-2009, 12:58 AM

I have been asked
...

Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration.

So your memory was faulty on this ^.

Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute.

And probably faulty on this. But I am not interested to explore.

However as post 1 of this thread shows, he used the "junk round" argument to argue for what he explicitly called "permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS."

It was later argued that this is not real acceleration and he accepted this, and so do I.

Yes, it uses the acceleration functionality of SP, but there was agreement to change the tag-name.

On that basis I retract my previous question and instead replace it with this one:

Still persisting even though you have made multiple misjudgements?

What I am trying to show here is that while MOZ has lambasted me for disagreeing with an acceleration proposal made by an IA, MOZ himself most likely does not really agree with that proposal either, and was just having a disingeneous go at me over it to try to score some points.

No.
I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual.

Thus making the next two quotes irrelevant.

If there had been 100 or more entrants in the Vic Open and the arbiter had decided to employ acceleration for the first two rounds only, would MOZ have been in favour of such a decision and if so why?

NB Any placement of any condition whatsoever upon the answering of this question, or any failure to answer it, will be taken as an answer of "no" on the basis of his previous comments.

Instead, of course, he kicked a number of own goals on the matter of "wherewithall".

On OZCHESS it is permissable to use dictionary definitions from the Urban D.

06-11-2009, 12:58 AM	#47 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,540	I have been asked ... Actually on checking the past record of this ancient thread carefully I find that MOZ's position is indeed, as he says, one of general hostility to true acceleration. So your memory was faulty on this ^. Indeed it was so much so that he repeatedly suggested that acceleration for two rounds produced a round 3 that was as bad as round 1, and had to be threatened with a goosemaster norm after repeating such a claim in the face of mathematical evidence to the contrary which he was completely unable to refute. And probably faulty on this. But I am not interested to explore. However as post 1 of this thread shows, he used the "junk round" argument to argue for what he explicitly called "permanent acceleration (of 2 bonus points) for the A division players in a large all-in SWISS." It was later argued that this is not real acceleration and he accepted this, and so do I. Yes, it uses the acceleration functionality of SP, but there was agreement to change the tag-name. On that basis I retract my previous question and instead replace it with this one: Still persisting even though you have made multiple misjudgements? What I am trying to show here is that while MOZ has lambasted me for disagreeing with an acceleration proposal made by an IA, MOZ himself most likely does not really agree with that proposal either, and was just having a disingeneous go at me over it to try to score some points. No. I objected to you insinuating the IA had not read the manual. Thus making the next two quotes irrelevant. If there had been 100 or more entrants in the Vic Open and the arbiter had decided to employ acceleration for the first two rounds only, would MOZ have been in favour of such a decision and if so why? NB Any placement of any condition whatsoever upon the answering of this question, or any failure to answer it, will be taken as an answer of "no" on the basis of his previous comments. Instead, of course, he kicked a number of own goals on the matter of "wherewithall". On OZCHESS it is permissable to use dictionary definitions from the Urban D. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.