Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 19:56:56 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >Your interpretation is that rule is _wrong_. The rule you quoted was intended >to handle one case: I have a King rook and pawn and a lot of time. You >have a king and rook and practically no time. The position is dead drawn, >so I just make moves trying to run you out of time. You can invoke the above >rule, ask an arbiter and have the game declared drawn. The rule I quoted is intended to be used as it is written. IE - if you are not making a reasonable effort to win the game, or it is not possible for you to win the game with reasonable play. The situation that Tiviakov was in does fit this situation - Fritz was not making any attempt in that game to win - Fritz was simply trying to hold on. >You can _not_ invoke the above rule just because you have more material than >I do, but hardly any time. It doesn't work that way. The above rule prevents Actually, you can. If you are <= 2 minutes on the clock, you may stop the clock and call the arbiter over. The arbiter then decides whether to accept your claim or not. (yes, there may be a penalty if your claim was unjustified) >my trying to simply run you out of time. It doesn't establish any threshold >that says "if the side running out of time has two or more extra pawns, he >may claim a draw." The rule simply says that the side with more time _must_ >be trying to make progress to win, and not just be shuffling a piece waiting >on the opponent's flag to fall. If I can prove I have pushed a pawn every 10 >moves, that is _clearly_ making progress. Fritz was simply trying to run Tiviakov out of time. Fritz didn't have even a remote chance of winning that game by any means other than flagging. Fritz was not making any efforts to win the game - it was simply trying to cling on and responding to threats. Pushing a pawn every 10 moves is not a clear sign of progress. Pushing a pawn can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the position. If things were as you would have it, you could be in a dead lost position, but your opponent has very little time left, and you can just push a pawn forward only to have it taken by your opponent and somehow call that progress. Please note that I didn't at any point in time say that "2 pawns up and down on time == draw". I simply believe that in the position where the operator offered a draw Tiviakov would have a very strong case for a draw, and didn't need the draw offer. >Yes he did. He can't claim a draw just because he is a pawn up and about to >lose on time. That isn't what the rule says. It says the side with more time >must not be trying to make any progress, before the rule can be used. You keep putting words in my mouth! I didn't say that Tiviakov can just say "I'm up a pawn or two and down on time, therefore I have a draw". I'm saying that he may claim a draw, and would most likely get it. The justification for this is simple - Fritz was making no attempt to win the game on the board, and didn't have any realistic chances to either. >You really resign when down 1 or 2 pawns? I don't. I might resign if I am >down a piece, or a rook, or a queen. But not one or two pawns. I often give >one or two pawns for an attack. Personally? Neither of us is a particularily strong player. I am talking about GM strength players. Whether or not you or I would resign is irrelevant. As an FYI - if I was playing someone down 2 pawns with no counterplay whatsoever, and I knew my opponent was of high enough calibre to not make a mistake in the game, yes, I would resign. >I was talking about the case where both are low on time. A manual computer >has problems that the human doesn't have (one extra operation for each move, >reading the screen or typing the move). In a game where both human and computer had under 2 minutes left to play - who do you think would be more likely to win? >I play a fair number of very long games vs GM players. But I have to log on >as a guest to keep them 'private'. Of course there is little point in tuning >to play GM players if you can't get into a tournament or match to actually >play one for real. Please define very long games. On a chess server "very long game" has quite a different meaning than it does in an OTB game, and on average, a "very long game" on a chess server is still quite short by OTB standards. >You fit the above, you notice. Your interpretation of the rule is way wrong. >An experienced TD would not make that mistake, or try to interpret the rule >as you did. You _think_ my interpretation of the rule is wrong. My opinion remains the same. I would like to note however that you keep arguing against my opinion by arguing against points I never made. I would never presume to say that "The player is up a pawn and down on time == draw". Such situations require an individual assessment, and in this case, my opinion is that Fritz couldn't have won that position on the board, and wasn't making an attempt to win it either. You are of course correct that an experienced TD would not make the mistake of simply giving a player a draw for being up a pawn and down on time. However, that is not what I said. If you would like to debate this issue, please address only points that I have actually made. Regards, Adrien.
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.