Author: blass uri
Date: 12:30:55 04/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2000 at 14:39:31, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 05, 2000 at 11:47:43, blass uri wrote: > >>On April 05, 2000 at 10:01:53, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On April 05, 2000 at 03:55:21, Peter Kappler wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>The 50 move rule is a bogus rule anyway. The reason it is bogus is that the >>>>>Fischer time controls are bogus. >>>> >>>>You lost me there. Fischer time controls have nothing to do with the advent of >>>>the 50-move rule. The 50-move rule was around long before Fischer time controls >>>>became popular. >>>> >>>>--Peter >>> >>>Agreed. I should have not said the "reason it is bogus". The 50 move rule was >>>bogus when introduced. I liked the concept of 2 people, x amount of time, if you >>>got yourself into a position where the 50 move rule could be applied and had >>>little time on your clock, too bad. Try to find a draw by rep. Otherwise, your >>>flag may fall. >>> >>>GMs tend to think of chess as the game itself, separate from the clock. They try >>>to pretend that there is some artistic quality that time controls stifle. I do >>>not understand this when 60% or more of GM games are draws anyway. >>> >>>Time control SHOULD be part of the game. The 50 move rule takes away from >>>winning, drawing, or losing in x amount of time. Fischer rules also take away >>>from this. In fact, you cannot have Fischer rules WITHOUT the 50 move rule or >>>else a game could go on indefinitely. >> >>You can have fisher rules without the 50 move rule because there is no rule that >>the game must end. > > >Well, most people have a life. They have to eat. They have to sleep. So, having >indefinite timed games just does not make any sense, especially at tournaments. > > >> >>Your ideas against fisher time control are going to produce more mistakes when >>the sides are on time trouble. > > >So? Why do we want a welfare society in a competitive environment like chess? >Chess should be competition, aggression, cunning. It shouldn't be an environment >of giving everyone a helping hand to do their best or protecting themselves from >themselves. > >The fight should be the thing. Not the ability to fight on. > > >> >>I support the old time control of something like 2 hours/40+2 hours/40+2 >>hours/40 because I want better games. > > >What is the definition of "better games"? If someone plays at G5+5, they will >probably have "worse games" than G60. If someone plays at correspondence, will >they necessarily have "better games" than at 2 hours/40+2 hours/40+2 hours/40? > >Making mistakes is part of the game. If you wanted a game without mistakes, you >should play tic tac toe. I know that making mistakes is part of the game and there are mistakes also in correspondecne games but the point is that I prefer games without big mistakes. > > >>> >>>Hence, the 50 move rule was bogus to begin with and the Fischer rules came along >>>and supported a non-existent NEED for the 50 move rule. >> >>The need was existent because people wanted better games. > > >The need was more basic than that. GMs were taking a long time in games on early >moves and finding out that they were in time trouble later. Since they had a >difficult time with time management, they wanted to add rules to prevent >themselves from losing games that were effectively drawn (if you discount the >clock). It is an ego thing (which of course relates to fame, money, standing, >etc.), not a "I want to give the world better games" thing. No I know that a long time ago there was no clock in the game and when people started to use the chess clock the time control in tournament was not x hours/game but something like 2 hours/40 moves+2 hours/40 moves+2 hours/40 moves+.... The decision to use 2 hours/40 moves+1 hour/game is new. I heard the reason for it is the fact that the game is not exactly games of humans when humans can use computers to help them in adjourned games and having a better program and a faster computer is an advantage. I do not understand this reason because in the past humans could use friends to help them in adjourned games and having better friends was an advantage. <snipped> >But, the Fischer time controls suddenly come along and really change things. It does not changes things because 2 hours/40 +2 hours/40+2 hours/40+... was a long time ago a common kind of time control. >Now, a certain style of play is rewarded (the person who plays slowly and well) >whereas other styles of play are actually penalized (the person who plays >quickly and well) since some of that person's competition was given a reward >which did not necessarily benefit him/her. playing quickly and well get rewarded because there are blitz tournaments and GM win money prizes based on their result in 5 minutes/game. Uri
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.