< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-16-07|| ||drkodos: I have also noticed that Taylor's pieces are frequently peppered with statements such as:|
"The only tiny little snag is this: during the game, there is no caption! No one whispers in your ear! (Unless, of course, your partner in crime has pocket Fritz and a wireless connection to your Walkman, but thatís another story!)" ....from THE DIFFICULT OPPONENT, T Taylor (2/5/06)
Interesting how often he skirts around the very issue in his writings with his semi-mocking tone. It is reminiscent of the same methods employed by twisted perps in their games with authorities in which their main goal is to prove their superior intelligence to the detectives by playing some cat-and-mouse game with their transgressions and the "facts" that surround it.
|Mar-16-07|| ||tpstar: A fascinating case study where neither side is completely blameless. It's easy to sympathize with the young man trying to play while his opponent frequently chats with another (strong) player with all eyes on the board; this can easily be construed as outside assistance, and one wouldn't need to be overly paranoid to complain about this. But I believe Alan N. did several things wrong. First, he should have notified the TD during play; if it was bad enough to complain afterward, then it was bad enough to complain at the time. Then if they continue chatting despite being warned, the other side is clearly in the wrong. Second, his rebuttal contains several personal attacks against Taylor which seriously weaken his own credibility instead of strengthening it. Third, like <Ziggurat> said, he should have slept on that letter and rewritten it a day later in a more constructive manner. Something like "Mr. Taylor, I saw you speaking to your wife several times right next to our board. I notified the TD because that may have been outside assistance" and dress it up from there. Fourth, whenever you write a response letter, cut the lawyerspeak ("ignominious" lol) as it always works against you. Fifth, that whole "print a minor's full name on the Internet" argument is laughable; anyone who enters a chess tournament where games will be published waives any such right, and the empty legal threat is counterproductive. Finally, get the parents out of it; he played the game, he filed the complaint, so it's his business. He ends his letter with "My parents will decide on the appropriate course of action" which is a total copout given the severity of his charges.|
Mr. Taylor obviously need to stop chatting with his wife during play, and they both need to stop using such stupid excuses as arranging childcare to rationalize it. His article is pretty harsh, yet I also sense the self-righteous indignation of someone falsely accused, so that's somewhat understandable. I do agree with him naming his accuser as a matter of principle.
The TD definitely comes across best. Note the businesslike format and objective tone of his response, also the clever inclusion of a previous incident involving the Taylors. He makes several strong statements but in a naturally polite fashion, making his position totally believable. Surely he must have been annoyed by such a distraction (involving players and parents) during a busy tournament.
Hopefully they can all learn from this experience so there's no next time. =)
|Mar-16-07|| ||unsound: Neither side is completely blameworthy, either--you can see how both would get upset in the circumstances. I think the villain of the piece is (or should be) less specific individuals and more the atmosphere (of suspicion and paranoia) created by the more notorious recent accusations of (and even possible actual incidents of) cheating.|
|Mar-16-07|| ||Caissanist: <tpstar>--excellent overview, very insightful and sensible, thank you for taking the time to write this up.|
|Mar-16-07|| ||euripides: I mostly agree with <tpstar> but I think it's a pity if informal conversations between players are prohibited - as was the case at an open (Cap La grande or something like that )reported today on the chessabse site. Open tournaments are a leisure activity for most of their participants and they should be enjoyable. In league chess in London, with which I am most familiar, team players often have brief chats with each other during play and for the most part people are happy to trust each other - I've only seen one case where someone objected because moves were being discussed but it was explained they were talking about a game that had finished. the main complaint is noise not skulduggery. Of course no money is at stake here. I don't know how American tournaments work; maybe the large cash prizes for lower rating categories encourage a more suspicious atmosphere ?|
|Mar-16-07|| ||WannaBe: <euripides> For the tournament in question, http://www.americanopen.org/prizes....|
Here are a few more examples of prize money in U.S. tournaments...
http://www.chesstour.com/chio07.htm or http://www.lvchessfestival.com/natl...
|Mar-16-07|| ||euripides: <Wannabe> thanks. Sounds completely bonkers.|
|Mar-16-07|| ||MaxxLange: Maybe we'd be better off without big prizes for amateurs, anyway. I've seen a lot of people lose one game at the World Open, then another, and they feel that their tournament is ruined because they are "out of the money". Some, but not all, can recover mentally, accept that their entry fee is history, and enjoy the rest of their games and the tournament social aspect.|
I won about $900 in a lower section some years ago, and it was a big thrill. But is it really worth all this?
|Mar-16-07|| ||SBC: |
My take on this article/incident is a bit different from those I've read here. The incident occurred. The reasons really aren't important: whether the boy should have handled his suspicions differently or whether his parents should or shouldn't have gotten involved; whether the Taylors should or shouldn't have been talking casually during the game. The fact is that they were talking; after the game the boy complained and the TD took a decisive and binding course of action. End of incident.
The problem is the article. Taylor could have used this experience to write a great article from all different points of view, such as what goes through the mind of someone falsely accused and how he comes to terms with it, or how times have changed an how people find cheaters, like terrorists, behind every bush and jump at every shadow, or even an instructive essay on the necessity of maintaining a higher level of perceived propriety and how a professional, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion, or something deeper and more philosophical such a Kafka himself might have written. But Taylor took the lowest road available and wrote a piece that hints of vindictiveness and self-pity rather than insightfulness and self-awareness.
The problem was never the incident. It was the journalism.
|Mar-16-07|| ||Whitehat1963: Who knew Tim "The Toolman" Taylor could play chess?|
|Mar-31-07|| ||drkodos: It is interesting to note that the article in question has been exorcised from the chesscafe site.|
|Mar-31-07|| ||whiskeyrebel: Yeah..I looked the other day hoping for an update, but Pfft! It's gone. I think it's important for USCF members to know how the dispute was resolved.|
|Apr-11-07|| ||Caissanist: Taylor's article has been archived, but it's still available on the Chesscafe site. The new link is http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skitt....|
|May-27-07|| ||katar: I met Tim today. Sure, his writing is controversial, but as a chess player he is very modest and generous with his time/knowledge.|
|May-27-07|| ||pazzed paun: <Themofro> it is a bit sad that so many people's critical facilties have withered away and politicaly correctness strangles honest thought in such a fashion that Taylor"s writings would be called "controversial" instead of a slice of life.
I much prefer Taylor's honest stuff over someone's "BLOG"|
|May-27-07|| ||Whack8888: <<tpstar> First, he should have notified the TD during play; if it was bad enough to complain afterward, then it was bad enough to complain at the time.>|
I think this is a bit much to ask from a 16 year old. I dont know how experienced he is with chess tournaments, but it is plausible that he hasnt played in too many tournaments. And even if he has, it is very likely he has never had to go to the TD with a complaint about his opponent's behavior.
I wouldnt really know what to do in that situation, and probably would have just told the two people to stop talking. If they didnt stop talking, I dont know what I would do, though.
As far as the tone of the letter, dang he is 16. We should be happy he can construct complete sentences.
Taylor's article is basically trash. Someone told him not to look at his wife's chess games or if he does look at the games not to talk to her and he acts like he is in some Kafkian distopia. Give me a break, if nothing else, Kafka deserves better.
|May-28-07|| ||RookFile: <plang: That was a good article. It is scary that a chess tournament could be administered that unfairly. Reminds me a bit of the story of when Reshevsky claimed a victory over Denker by time forfeit when, in fact, it was Reshevskys flag that had dropped.>|
Check out the actual game. When did Reshevsky's flag drop? Choose from the following options:
A) Reshevsky's flag dropped after he played his 45th move, before he could punch the clock. So what? Denker then immediately <played> 45...Rb4, and forfeited any right he had to claim a win on time.
B) Reshevsky's flag fell as soon as Denker played 45....Rb4. Well, there's an obvious problem: <it would therefore be a new time control>. Reshevsky doesn't lose on time here either!
It's probably true that the referee erred by awarding Reshevsky a win on time. (Since Reshevsky kept quiet about this while Denker was writing about this in books, that is probably the case.)
However, it is a fair point that the best result Denker gets from what happenned is a draw, not a win. He gets a draw by virtue of the fact that the position on the board is a dead draw.
There simply isn't a legal way that Denker can claim a win a time.
|May-29-07|| ||katar: pazzed paun, Taylor's writing is "controversial" because it is "marked by or capable of arousing controversy". Describing something as controversial is not tantamount to questioning its worth or calling for its censorship. Your insult and condescension are misplaced. To me, it's sad that my post about Taylor would be picked apart (and my mental facilities questioned) over a meritless semantic nuance. I visited this page just to disclose that Mr. Taylor ("Oh, please call me Tim") is a complete gentleman who modestly showed his most crushing defeat and tutored a group of class B players for an hour or so. He's a good guy, though misunderstood due to his controversial (look it up) writings.|
|May-29-07|| ||plang: "It's probably true that the referee erred by awarding Reshevsky a win on time. (Since Reshevsky kept quiet about this while Denker was writing about this in books, that is probably the case.)"|
Nethertheless, it was highly unethical of Reshevsky to accept a win on time when he knew that Denker's flag had not dropped.
|May-29-07|| ||pazzed paun: <katar>sorry! not meaning to insult you, and i guess the word can be used that way, i usually think of a controversy as two or more sides having nearly equal merit, Taylor's writings might be called contentous instead. Taylor writes well and should be encouraged.|
|Feb-23-08|| ||DarthStapler: Isn't this guy the main character from Home Improvement?|
|Sep-13-08|| ||Duck McCluck: I haven't heard of this man before his impressive victory recently.|
|Sep-28-08|| ||Duck McCluck: I have analyzed 16 of his games (8 of his wins, 8 of his losses) and it seems like if this guy can make a passed pawn, then he'll sac a knight or become over enthused about some longshot endgame superiority which I doubt he's at the current GM level. Maybe he can make a comeback--I dont know.|
|May-16-12|| ||wordfunph: "I gave up the Caro-Kann; but really, neither Mr Caro nor Mr Kann should be blamed, but only IM Taylor!"|
- IM Timothy Taylor (on his horrific defeat against E. Perelshteyn in Las Vegas 2005)
Source: True Combat Chess by Timothy Taylor
|May-16-12|| ||OhioChessFan: I would like to hear from the TD if he used the word "cheating", if his body language and demeanor were as challenging as Taylor claims, etc. It doesn't matter, I guess. I agree with those who point out the obvious fact Taylor had no business talking with his wife during a game. And from the opponent's point of view, the wife's two piece blunders happened after the last conversation.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·