Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 14:35:28 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 06:22:50, Tony Werten wrote: (snip) >BTW if have some problems with a claim from a proffessional chessplayer, that he >didn't win because he was distracted by a drawoffer (one, not fourteen in a row, >that I would have understood). It looks more like he was pissed off and took an >easy target. > Well, we don't know. I for one do not think that he tried to hide secondary motives. If the position was won he surely expected that ... well there you are. Here is the missing link in our debate. Who should have shown him respect like the other GMs would have? I would agree that Tiviakov somehow argued confused. The machine couldn't show him respect or it should have had the programmed order "resign when you are at -2.". Obviously this can't be done because there are cases where such reaction would be stupid. The operator couldn't show respect either. He is no chess expert. He might follow some hints from the business department, he might think that Tiviakov shouldn't lose on time. But the question remains _why_ Morsch didn't resign? Only explanation for me because he couldn't understand that the position was totally lost. And perhaps because he did never learn something about the very distinctive behavior of most GMs. Let me characterize this with an example. A GM would prefer to lose than winning a game just by bad behavior, disturbing the opponent or because of zeitnot (note I talk about classical tournament chess and a case where the position is totally lost). If a GM would try to make points with such behavior he would become a social outsider.
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.