No I am not.Adam Ashton wrote:... you seemed to be saying that 'it's not a big deal because people get away with worse', ...
I am saying that the offence is fairly minor and should be punished accordingly. In my opinion the couple have already been chastised. This was the view taken in the Guinness non-trial (sic), where the charges were infinitely more substantial.
If one opts for a lifetime ban for this; what is the penalty for something serious? Dinner, I suppose.
Apparently any GM who intentionally publishes faulty analysis, in the hope that someone will play it when money is at stake, should be banned for life.Adam Ashton wrote:Deceiving people for monetary gain(however slight) is pretty serious in my view.
Although not with a view to earning I living, I trust. I have been told that it is possible to make enough to survive for players of their strength in the UK by teaching chess, I don't know whether this is true in Australasia too; however, winning tuppeny ha'ppeny prizes incognito is, how can I put it, a flawed way of going about it.Austin Elliott wrote:An alternative interpretation to put on their actions, which could chime with some of the facts, would be that they were considering re-locating Downunder and decided to tour around incognito and see what the Australasian chess scene was like.
If Austin includes the proviso that the degree of turpitude is also a consideration, then I could agree with him.Austin Elliott wrote:What they did was clearly ill-judged and deceptive. but ultimately the question of precisely what punishment might be appropriate hangs rather on their MOTIVE for doing this (i.e. deception for financial gain or something less culpable).