Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 15:56:16 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? Excuse me. This is not the point in this case. 1. Tiviakov was _not_ losing on time because he had a safe draw in his hands by repetition. 2. Tiviakov was _not_ severely short in time. Did you know the rule about Tiviakov's possibility to claim a draw whenever he wanted? (I must admit that I didn't know the new rules by FIDE.) 3. Fritz had a _lost_ position. > 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. I want to disagree. Are you saying that such entity is comparable to a real GM player? The machine gives the strength and the operator the classical behavior of a GM? At least Tiviakov saw it differently. He said the machine showed no respect for him. Guess why? Because the machine was lost. > 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. I think we must disagree here. There was no significant danger IMO. > >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. Here your analogy is completely wrong. How could the operator been distracted? BTW the machine couldn't be distracted too. And then you're completely wrong if you think that a GM could propose a draw in a totally lost position. He simply wouldn't do that. > >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. There you have a point. We could compare this to Kasparov in 1997 against DB. Of course one could think of a better behavior. But why discussing Tiviakov's behavior and not the one of F. Morsch. Fact is that Tiviakov blundered after that draw offer. I want to say that we also must differentiate opens and rapids and on the other side classical tournament chess. I would agree that in the first sort of event you will find examples of F. Morsch's style. But in serious events you won't find such misbehavior simply because a real GM doesn't want points won like this. Are you disagreeing with me on that point? Hans
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.