> the robot must be given time to react. But the boy was in a hurry and the robot grabbed him

A soft blame, but a blame nonetheless. It's an attempt to divert responsibility, no matter how you look at it. They were ultimately in charge of the situation, it's never a good sign when the leaders immediately try to assign blame elsewhere.

Maybe you think the fact that they're not explicitly blaming the robot is tantamount to blaming the child, but I don't read it that way.

So, where are you from exactly? I am curious which culture draws an equation sign between "x triggered y" and "x is to blame for y".

Diverting responsibility is making virtuous political statements, instead of analysing what went unexpected.

Is that not an explicit diversion of responsibility? They allowed the robot to operate at their event. I might buy a mistranslation, but seems like a stretch.

I come from 8 years of experience in industrial robotics. That the boy triggered a “bug” is irrelevant. It's a distraction. The bug isn't the issue here. This kind of robot should not have been used in the first place. That is my point.

Why? How are you going to fix it then?

> This kind of robot should not have been used in the first place. That is my point.

Please, open your favorite search engine, find images for "chess robot" and tell me how the whole humanity had managed to fail in designing a default chess robot.

In any case, seems like we won't be seeing any chess robots in Russia anymore, which would be stupid as hell.