Author: Tony Werten
Date: 03:38:27 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 05:07:29, Hans Gerber wrote: >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? The text doesn't say that. It says that Frans didn't play on in a deaddraw position and even in a perhaps slighly favourable one. But he accepted the position (drawish) as a result. Tiviakov suggests that he then also accepts that this position is lost, and Frans therefor resigns. Tony
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.