> If Michael Adelman is being a fool, then count me in. There is no
> doubt in my mind that in the aggregate, Michael's perspective is a
> much healthier one for the game as a whole than Weiner's, Frankel's,
> or by induction, Romero's.
Changing the easiest tournament of the year because it's not easy
enough for people who have already quit isn't "healthy." It's "pointless."