Author: blass uri
Date: 07:38:28 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 10:25:15, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >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. I also had the same experience but I do not think that it is right to offer a draw in a worse position. I remember one case when I had a better position but was in time trouble and my opponent offered me a draw. I looked for a forced win for some minutes and did not find it and after I understood that I am in danger of losing on time I decided to accept the draw. My opponent complained after the game about the fact that I accpeted the draw. He explained that all the idea of offering me a draw was to win because he expected me to think about the offer,not accepting it and to lose because of time trouble. 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. <snipped> >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. I do not think that the human was in significant danger of losing on time He could draw by repetition if he wanted a draw. 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.