Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 07:25:15 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 04:38:10, Hans Gerber wrote: >On May 16, 2000 at 02:51:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >(snip) > >> >>I have no idea why chess players expect their opponent to resign when in a lost >>position, if in order to achieve this won position they have left themselves so >>little time that they can't actually win the game without the opponent's >>cooperation. It seems an awful lot to ask of one's opponent. People should >>understand that this kind of thing happens when you sit down to play with a >>sudden-death time control, and plan accordingly. If you don't plan well enough, >>you deserve a less desirable outcome. >> >>bruce > > >You "have no idea...". Let me help you. Your reasoning is completely off the >mark. > >1. Tiviakov did _not_ claim victory when he was under time pressure in a won >position. >2. Tiviakov did _not_ claim draw when he was under time pressure in a won >position. >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). > >Your "I have no idea..." is typical for people who work on the machine's side. >You are lacking of the necessary education in chess. Your machines might play >like masters but you are not operating like masters. That is the problem. Your >article demonstrated that you can't have a clue why a certain codex of behavior >in chess does exist at all. Well, I am *not* lacking the necessary education in chess (being a USCF Master with 20+ years tournament playing and directing experience), and I *completely* agree with Bruce. Who says you don't propose a draw in a worse position, when time is severly short for your opponent? I have had draws offered to me in this situation many times before. Sometimes I accepted them, sometimes I didn't. If I screwed up enough in my time management, then I have given my opponent an advantage sometimes compensating for my advantage over the board. I managed my pieces better, he managed his clock better. That's simply the nature of modern tournament play. I think your condescending response to Bruce misses the point entirely. When Fritz plays Human, it's a battle between two entities, and I would evaluate the behaviour of the computer (and operator) as I would a human. I don't care whether my opponent is a box of wires, or a bag of bones and muscles. As long as the rules of chess are observed, then I am satisfied. To me there are several questions that need to be answered to determine if Fritz's behaviour was out of line: 1. Was there repeated draw requests in order to distract the opponent? Apparently not. 2. Was there a legitimate reason for offering the draw in the position? Yes, The human had used a great deal of time to obtain his better position, and was in significant danger of losing on time. 3. Was the draw offered properly, i.e. after completing the computer move on the board, offering the draw, then hitting the clock? This I don't know. If the draw was offered correctly, then I see nothing wrong in the actions of Fritz. Had Tiviakov chosen to spend less time earlier in the game, then he would have won. His choice, his consequences. Reversing the roles, do you think that Fritz should be granted a win if, in a losing position, it's GM opponent offers a draw that 'distracts' the operator? Of course not. Nobody forced him to blunder either. Tiviakov is an experienced GM. If he can't handle a properly offered draw offer (even in time trouble), then he's got bigger problems than drawing a computer. Chris
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.