Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 02:07:29 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 04:46:24, blass uri wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 04:38:10, Hans Gerber wrote: > ><snipped> >>3. It was F. Morsch who dared to propose draw in the time pressure of the human >>player and in a completely lost position. >>4. F. Morsch behaved impolitely and without respect. Because you don't propose >>draw in lost positions (as operator of a machine). > >I agree that F. Morsch behaved impolitely but it does not change the fact that >tiviakov complained also about the fact that the operator did not resign in a >lost position and this complain is not justified. > >Uri I forgot to comment on your article. Here I agree with you. _This_ claim is nonsense. But I would favor a solution that is in-built in the machine. Otherwise the human player will always see problems in the behavior of the operator. Now let us read what Tiviakov might have meant. (Note that he might have written his declaration in highly emotional state.) He argued IMO that _if_ F. Morsch had granted Reindermann a draw in unclear position, means he made him a present, _then_ he should have given him, Tiviakov, the whole point, regarding the two pawn (dis)advantage. If you read it like this you could agree?
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.