Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 16:25:00 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >But in that case - remove the clock - because time control has no meaning at >all. Chess was in fact originally played without a clock. I don't remember the names of the players, and may have the story a bit messed up .. but the clock was introduced after an incident like this: Player a is sitting at the board, absorbed in thought on move 1, player b is wandering around waiting for player a to move. Eventually player b goes to the board and asks what's taking player a so long to make his first move - player a responds: "It's your move" ! :P I think you are misunderstanding the spirit of having the clock - the idea is to put time constraints on how long the game will go - to be fair to both players, and to allow multiple games in a day. It is not intended for someone to try to win on time. The cases I was talking about were meant simply to prevent someone from trying to win solely based on the clock. If a position is reached where the result is not clear, and one player is not just obviously trying to win on the clock, yes, if the other player flags, he will lose the game. There are some wins in chess that take a lot of moves to achieve. Even if a player isn't in such a dire situation as 2 minutes left - say both players have 15 minutes left on the clock, but the position on the board requires at least 60 moves for white to win. White has to play fairly accurately to convert his win, but black simply shuffles his pieces around, since he has nothing to do, and will clearly not use up any of his time. To award black a win in a situation like this if white loses on time is to penalize white for achieving a won position! Cases like these are the reason why there are rules to prevent somebody from winning via the clock. >And last: your observation about fast paced society is sympathetic and well >worth reflecting more, but basically has nothing to do with the application of >chess rules we all agreed to before playing a tournament. Well, perhaps sudden death is a modern necessity .. but I think one thing is clear - in a serious game, a player should have enough time per move to be able to at least look at the position and make their move. I think a small increment in a sudden death situation is a suitable solution - giving you enough time to see what move your opponent has played, play your move, and hit the clock. Regards, Adrien.
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.