Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:55:07 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 14:16:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: >I am an inactive USCF expert. I claim no great knowledge of chess manners, but >you can't state that all people above a certain rating threshold, coincidentally >including you, would agree with you. This is demonstrably false. I didn't claim something like that but let's see your data. > >I just asked a GM on ICC, and here is the question and the response. I don't >know who this guy is, his name isn't in his notes and he's not in gm-bio. > >aics% . i am playing in a tournament game, with long time control and sudden >death at the end >aics% . it's an ending and i'm dead lost but my opponent only has a minute left >aics% . is it acceptable to try to run them out on the clock >aics% . is it acceptable to offer a draw? >aics% >[name deleted](GM) tells you: I think, yes And your point would be? :) I am very serious in telling you that you didn't discuss my point with that GM. Did you say that you asked as operator of a computer or as a potentially human chess expert? Now I will tell you how this GM (I am very sure of!) and his fellow players handle such cases. Let's differentiate two cases. Normal tournaments with the tournament time controls. Impossible that a draw could be offered. It would be judged as extremely offensive. In such cases either you resign or you also have the right to continue -- also with the possibility that you will "win" that game. I think GM professionals handle that also under the aspect _who_ the opponent is. If it's someone stronger or accepted as a good blitz player it's impossible to _not_ resign in such cases. Only excuse could be when both are in deep time trouble. Then they play until time control and then the losing player will resign on the spot. Second case a typical blitz or rapid tournament. Or let's go to so-called opens too. Events where the squeezing of the opponent to win the point stand in the foreground -- there we will have many cases of such behavior. It's more like gambling. The offer of a draw assures you the minimum success. If your opponent wants by all means to beat you, then you try to bust him on time. I think that you have not the environment to learn about real tournament behavior among the real professionals. It is not to imagine how a known GM should try to save a draw in a totally lost position. And when I talk about lost positions I mean already that two pawn inferiority, with the exception if a typical technical drawish tendency for the endgame could be foreseen. It depends on the position. But as we know Tiviakov had a clear win. Another mistake in your "research" was the question itself. You didn't ask the GM if he would act that way if he would play in a serious tournament. Not open nor rapid. And even he would tell you anonymously, would you conclude that he would really do it? > >I also asked another titled player who is rather close to this event, and he >said that he didn't think that Frans had "any bad intention at all". Now this is a totally different question. I am convinced that F. Morsch did it out of bad intentions, but he did it out of ignorance of the content of such real chess situations. I would even believe F. Friedel that Morsch tried to be fair and grant Tiviakov a draw because didn't want to win on time. But what he should have done he simply didn't do! He should have resigned. I agree with those who claim that in the case of a machine this would not be so easy if you knew that the machine could quite easily survive the last two minutes and that this could be done so quickly that the human might lose on time. I would go so far as to agree that this should be dealt with beforehand. How this case should be handled. If then the players knew that a machine could go for a win in normally (in terms of GM chess) lost positions they had to watch their clock more carefully. You see I don't want to make the machines like humans. But in the absence of such rules (if FIDE rules are not already sufficient?) the operator should behave as politely as possible and he should in case of twilight prefer to resign than to go for the point. I repeat "in tournaments with normal time schedule". Let me give you as a computerchess expert the following reflection. Please think of the human's extra difficulty to play normal chess in such an unnormal situation. You are in zeitnot and you normally look at the board and the fingers of the opponent. But in case of computers you look at the operator who looks at the display then you look at him then at his hands and then only at the board. Do you see the disturbances? >bruce > >>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.