Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:03:42 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 18:14:46, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >Hello, > >About the Tiviakov (I don't know if I will ever spell this name right.. :P) >incident - > >A lot of you are still demonstrating a lack of understanding of the rules of >chess. It seems that lots of you are basing your standards for chess games on >what happens on FICS/ICC. > >On FICS/ICC, you can flag someone in a completely dead lost position and there >is nothing your opponent can do about it, and you can flag in a completely drawn >position too. > >This is not the case in OTB games! (The only reason why things are like this on >FICS/ICC is that it is completely impractical to try to enforce the rules as >they are OTB, since there are no TDs and/or arbiters around to resolve such >incidents) > >Some of you seem to think that the operator was doing Tiviakov a favour by >offering a draw with 2 minutes left. This is completely untrue. Tiviakov at >any time could have stopped the clock, called over the TD and claimed a draw. >Also - if Tiviakov thought he couldn't have won the game considering the >situation on the clock, he would have offered the draw himself - he clearly >thought he still had chances to win the game! That is wrong. You can't claim a draw, just because you are a bit ahead in material, and _way_ behind on time. I have directed many tournaments over the years. This has _never_ been in a rule book. There are cases about positions where one side can't possibly win, so the other side can't possibly win on time. But here, the human couldn't stop the clock and claim a draw just because he claimed the game was winnable but he didn't have enough time. What rule book are you looking at? Certainly not the FIDE rules of chess... > >A few other people seem to think that offering the draw at 2 minutes was >inappropriate and that the operator would be doing Tiviakov a favour by offering >a draw with say only a few seconds left to go. This is also untrue. With 1 >second to go, Tiviakov can stop the clock and call over a TD, once again claimin >g a draw. This is simply incorrect. > >Now, the last group is a bit less clear-cut: some of you think the operator >should have waited until (and if) Tiviakov made a blunder to offer the draw. >Even then - Tiviakov could have called over the TD! There are two possibilities >here (I am talking in general terms, not just this particular game): if the >player has made a huge blunder and is obviously losing now and not winning >anymore, he can claim his opponent was trying to win on the flag. This is a bit >of a dubious claim, but such claims do get issued and I'd say maybe 30% of the >time this will work. The other possibility (which I think is more of what >happened in the game) is a smaller blunder which throws away the win. The >player can claim a draw here .. and would be successful probably about 70% of >the time - the other 30% of the time, the TD might choose to see if the other >player is actually trying to make progress or not - if it proves clear that the >other player is trying to simply win by flagging their opponent, the TD will >award the draw. > Offering a draw was certainly a gentlemanly way of handling the issue. Frans didn't want to win on time. He saw no way for the human to win in a sudden- death ending... had the flag fallen, the human would have _lost_. I don't know how you think he could have claimed a draw, unless he had a forced repetition. But he had to actually repeat the position a third time before he could claim the draw. You can't claim "the possibility of a repetition"... that isn't in my rule book... > >Incidentally, it used to be that such sudden death time situations simply didn't >exist (and it's not even very long ago). I've been playing chess in organized >tournaments for about 6 or 7 years, and I can remember the first couple years I >played in, almost every tournament had continuous time controls - 40/120 >followed by 30/90 to be followed by as many 30/60's as were needed for the game >to finish, and if there was only one or two games left going on really long, >they would be adjourned to allow the next round to progress. Sudden death has been around for 20+ years. I don't particularly like them. But they do stop the ridiculously long impossible to win games that make a TD pull his hair out trying to get pairings done on time... sudden death is no advantage for a computer when you have a human operator. The human takes time... unlike on ICC with an automatic interface... > >The movement to sudden death time controls seems to be a result of our fast >paced society that doesn't have any patience at all. Many players (especially >the stronger ones) grumble constantly about sudden death time controls. I don't >think that getting involved in heated incidents with the players over sudden >death time control issues is going to help in terms of computers being allowed >to play in GM tournaments. > > >As to whoever said that the tournament organizers in this case have the gold, >that is technically true, but not the analogy I was making in this case. In >this case, the gold is the opportunity to play games against GM opposition. >Trust me, if the players decide they don't want to play computers at all >anymore, computers will never see the light of day again in a human tournament. > > >Regards, >Adrien. Probably true. But the GMs visit the chess servers often enough that this isn't a problem in general.
This page took 0.01 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.