Play chess online!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Amateur Team East, Round 1
As usual, annotation will appear in the text box beneath the board as you play through the game.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Eastern Amateur Team Championships
Many congratulations to Paul MacIntyre, Brian Hulse, Libardo Rueda, and Alan Price, the winners of this year's Amateur Team East tournament! Out of the 250+ teams participating, theirs was the only team with a perfect 6-0 score, sealed by MacIntyre's clutch win (the game was actually agreed drawn in order to seal the match) over GM Kaufman in the last round. The Boston-based squad will play for the national championship in March, and we wish them well.
Your humble scribe also participated in the tournament, and over the next few days I will try to post some of my games, with analysis. In the meantime, I have to put down an insurrection from my cat, who apparently took my absence as a sign that she is the true master of the house, and is now stealth-biting me at every opportunity.
Your humble scribe also participated in the tournament, and over the next few days I will try to post some of my games, with analysis. In the meantime, I have to put down an insurrection from my cat, who apparently took my absence as a sign that she is the true master of the house, and is now stealth-biting me at every opportunity.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A Restaurant Review (?!)
I should really leave this sort of thing to G (who, unlike me, actually knows food), but I do have one recommendation: If you're ever at Tartufo in Newton Center, order the signature dessert. It's a scoop of coffee gelato in a thin shell of walnut shavings, with fruit and whipped cream. Delicious, and definitely the highlight of my evening there.
Monday, February 2, 2009
What not to do with a Drunken Sailor
This story is a bit old, but worth mentioning. Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard an interesting case that tests the limits of employer liability and civic duty. The facts were these: six men hired a limousine to go clubhopping, got roaring drunk in full view of the driver, and asked to be dropped off at a bar close to where their cars were parked. The driver did so, and one of the men promptly drove his car into an intersection, causing an accident that killed an off-duty police officer. The officer's family, along with others injured in the accident, sued the livery company on grounds of negligence.
The trial court dismissed the claim, asserting that the limo driver did not have a duty to the victims once his passengers left his vehicle. However, the SJC disagreed, holding that the limo driver "owed a duty" to the plaintiffs, since he could have known that his passengers were drunk and could thus have concluded that they would soon be driving while intoxicated.
The first thing to note is this: Contrary to the lead paragraph of the Globe article, the SJC did not rule that the livery company was liable in this case; they merely held that it could be liable, and that the case should be decided by a jury. Small consolation to the company -- I'm sure they'll settle so as not to risk a painfully expensive verdict -- but important nonetheless. From a theoretical perspective, there are really two issues involved here: first, the delineation of the driver's duty to the victims (how much would he have had to know in order to be liable -- would he actually have to see the passengers drink alcohol inside the limousine? What if he suspected they were going to drive home, but wasn't 100% sure? Would it make a difference if only some of the passengers were drunk?); second, the practical question of the driver's options in this situation. Should he have called the police? Driven around until the passengers sobered up? If he had done so, and the passengers attempted to leave (a likely scenario), would he have had a duty to restrain them?
For me, this second question is really the sticking point. I can understand wanting service drivers to keep an eye on their passengers (in the same way that we want bartenders to cut off a drunk patron), but I'm not sure that the real-life benefits would be that great -- sooner or later, you're either going to have to let your passenger go, unless you take draconian measures to detain him. The costs, by contrast, are readily apparent: it would be a lot harder for a limousines, cabs, etc. to do business in Massachusetts, because they would always have to err on the side of caution when dropping off someone who has visited a restaurant or bar. In addition, there's a little demon perched on my shoulder, whispering about the implicit abrogation of personal responsibility involved in this decision (and in all decisions that extend the scope of "civic duty," e.g. misprison of felony cases). That guy has some serious social issues, though, so I'm not sure whether to trust his judgment.
What do you think of the decision?
The trial court dismissed the claim, asserting that the limo driver did not have a duty to the victims once his passengers left his vehicle. However, the SJC disagreed, holding that the limo driver "owed a duty" to the plaintiffs, since he could have known that his passengers were drunk and could thus have concluded that they would soon be driving while intoxicated.
The first thing to note is this: Contrary to the lead paragraph of the Globe article, the SJC did not rule that the livery company was liable in this case; they merely held that it could be liable, and that the case should be decided by a jury. Small consolation to the company -- I'm sure they'll settle so as not to risk a painfully expensive verdict -- but important nonetheless. From a theoretical perspective, there are really two issues involved here: first, the delineation of the driver's duty to the victims (how much would he have had to know in order to be liable -- would he actually have to see the passengers drink alcohol inside the limousine? What if he suspected they were going to drive home, but wasn't 100% sure? Would it make a difference if only some of the passengers were drunk?); second, the practical question of the driver's options in this situation. Should he have called the police? Driven around until the passengers sobered up? If he had done so, and the passengers attempted to leave (a likely scenario), would he have had a duty to restrain them?
For me, this second question is really the sticking point. I can understand wanting service drivers to keep an eye on their passengers (in the same way that we want bartenders to cut off a drunk patron), but I'm not sure that the real-life benefits would be that great -- sooner or later, you're either going to have to let your passenger go, unless you take draconian measures to detain him. The costs, by contrast, are readily apparent: it would be a lot harder for a limousines, cabs, etc. to do business in Massachusetts, because they would always have to err on the side of caution when dropping off someone who has visited a restaurant or bar. In addition, there's a little demon perched on my shoulder, whispering about the implicit abrogation of personal responsibility involved in this decision (and in all decisions that extend the scope of "civic duty," e.g. misprison of felony cases). That guy has some serious social issues, though, so I'm not sure whether to trust his judgment.
What do you think of the decision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
