Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:14:46 06/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 1999 at 11:47:27, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 10, 1999 at 20:11:32, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 10, 1999 at 19:46:25, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>[snip] >>>Ng1 isn't an inferior move if neither player can win and they both seek the >>>shortest draw, which is precisely the condition I was describing. Then it >>>deserves a double exclam. >>Is it legal to offer a draw before any move has been made? Or after 1. d4 or >>something? In such a case, I propose that as the shortest draw. >>[snip] > >Darn, I pulled myself back into this discussion (I hate when I do that :) ). Doh! :) >First I will address Dann's comment: > >I think the FIDE rules indirectly imply that a move must be made (although >Miles/Reuben got away with a draw with no moves in 1975), depending on >interpretation: "The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during >the game. This immediately ends the game". Since this says "during the game", it >implies that the game is actually being played (or one move has been made???). Yes. At www.clubkasparov.ru you can read something by V. Dvorkovich (sp?), an International Arbiter, who discusses how he dealt with a recent "GM draw". >For computer chess, the game normally does not start until a move is made >(although I do not know how this is handled in the WCCC for if one computer is >down after start time or something). > >Next I will address Dave's comment: > >"Ng1 isn't an inferior move if neither player can win and they both seek the >shortest draw, which is precisely the condition I was describing. Then it >deserves a double exclam." > >1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 may be a drawn position. If it is, it may be that black will >play Ng8 in an attempt to draw. However, since Ng1 gives black two tempi, it is >more likely that it a winning position for black than the original starting >position is a winning position for white (i.e. two tempi vs. one tempi). >Therefore, there is a more substantial chance that black has a forced win after >Ng1. If this is the case, then white should not play Ng1. Well, I could buy "more likely" in normal circumstances with fallible players, but we are not speaking of fallible players, we are discussing perfect players. (At least, we were when I made the Ng1 comment... I think it was that you were looking for high-quality chess games between two perfect-playing entities, and I said that with the "play for the shortest draw when the position is objectively drawn" strategy, and if there is enough "slack" in chess that a position like after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 is drawn, then some very uninteresting chess would result.) But back from my digression: whatever the true evaluation of the position is, the players will know it. So, either the position is decisive for either side, in which case the line will be avoided by whoever it is bad for, or the position is drawn, in which case the line will be played to get to the quickest draw (when players are optimizing for short draws). >If at best black has a forced draw after Ng1, then Ng8 could lead to a fast draw >as you claim. However, you also stated that maybe minimum draws are not >necessarily best (your opponent has less of a chance of making a mistake). A >more complicated or slower draw may be best. So, regardless of whether Ng1 leads >to a win for black or a draw for black, Ng1 should not be moved since it lowers >the chances of your opponent making a mistake (by trying to minimize the number >of moves of a draw AND by giving your opponent two tempi). Some different >drawing move that does not lead to a possible win for black or leads to a slower >or more complicated draw should be made. Correct, Ng1 is not a good move when playing fallible opponents. This does not refute its brilliance under the original conditions. <grin> >KarinsDad :) > >PS. I think I got you with my logic this time Dave, but I'm sure you'll think >of a way to squirm out of it. :) Squirm. >PSS. I guess you have convinced me that the minimal draw move may not be best >(with the caveat that it may be best in time pressure). That was my objective. Does this mean that I got you with my logic? :-) Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.