Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:48:19 08/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 22:42:05, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On August 19, 1999 at 21:27:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Name one GM player that would play another GM in a real game, and not call >>"flag" when the flag falls. This isn't a 'sportsmanship' issue. Because >>'sportsmanship' has _nothing_ to do with violating specific rules and letting >>that pass... > >we have a different point of view of >sportsmanship and fairness and "violating specific rules" whatever this >sentence means. >i have seen ed playing against a polgar sister. i do not remember >it accurate, but i guess rebel was better and polgar had >less time and he offered a draw. >i have seen this behaviour also somewhere else. This is not the same issue. Crafty offers draws in drawn positions, even if its opponent (IM/GM) is low on time. I don't do this for 'sportsmanship' reasons, I do it so that the IM/GM will come back and play again. However, those same players will flag crafty within a millisecond of it going over a time limit... and they should, as it will flag them if _they_ lose on time as well. Nothing wrong with offering a draw rather than trying to run your opponent out of time... but you won't find many players (and no GM/IM players that I have ever seen) on ICC that will ignore a flag falling unless the game is unrated. >maybe i see chess more like kortschnoi does: more like an art than like >the way YOU define sports. for me winning is not the important thing. >for me the game is the important thing. Do a database search on Korchnoi. I found _many_ games where he won on time in my opening database. He isn't the 'sportsman' at all if that is your definition. :) And in a couple of those games he was clearly losing as well.. >i am watching soccer not to see somebody win but to see 90 minutes >interesting match. even better if it is a fair match. >we have a different point of view. i think they are not compatible. >hm. yes, but what happens when the timer hits zero? >what do you think is the reason chris and i (also my friend uli) >has this point of view and you and others have your point of view ? >any ideas ? maybe _we_ play chess? And the game has rules, and the clock is included? And when the flag falls, the flag falls. Again, show me a _real_ game using a clock where the flag falling didn't end the game. Any game in real FIDE or whatever play, except for those where the flag falling doesn't result in a loss because the person claiming the flag didn't have a complete game score and couldn't prove the flag fell before the requisite number of moves were made. The purpose of a computer playing chess is to "play chess". And since the rules of the game include the clock, why try to hand-wave sloppy programming into 'sportsmanship'? There is _no_ valid reason for overstepping a clock time limit by a computer. It just isn't reasonable... and no amount of justification will make it become reasonable. and this has nothing to do with 'beans'... just 'brains'...
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.