Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 09:13:28 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. Hint: because the rules don't allow it. >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. The clock is part of the game, and therefore the position wasn't hopeless for Fritz. If Tiviakov had 30 minutes left instead of 2, I'm sure Morsch would have resigned for Fritz. >4. F. Morsch behaved impolitely and without respect. Because you don't propose >draw in lost positions (as operator of a machine). > This is so silly. If Morsch hadn't made that very courteous draw offer there is a good chance that Tiviakov would have lost that game on time, or even blundered in time pressure and lost on the board. Then you and others would be complaining "Why did Fritz try to win on time against Tiviakov?" Ridiculous. Oh, and I've played tournament chess for 15 years, so spare me any lectures on the "codex of behavior". Draw offers from a player who is worse on the board but way up on the clock are completely normal and acceptable. --Peter >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. > >I tried to explain this already in the discussion about DB team's psychowar >against Kasparov -- the _insult_ there and here in case of F. Morsch lies in the >lack of respect for the performance, for the existence itself of the human >chessplayer. Operators or creators of a machine should dissapear behind their >machine. They should _not_ take part as actors. Simply because they come from a >different sphere. _They_ don't play chess but their machine does. The best >solution would be if the machine would play completely on its own. A whole game. >A whole match. A whole tournament. Operator should be someone who has no >understanding for chess at all. However he should be educated in good manners... > >Baseline. It's an act of unbelievable misbehavior if the operator begins to >gamble for a point in a lost position. It's a scandal if the people behind the >project decide to grant some players a quick draw while they want to squeeze >others.
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.