Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:07:44 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 22:56:56, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >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. THis shows you know nothing about how a program plays chess. The program _always_ is trying to win. Even when down in material. It is never just "trying to hold on". The rule has several requirements before it can be used. One is "clearly winning". In the final position, neither side is "clearly winning". So it doesn't apply at all. > > >>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) > And in this case, the arbiter would say "you are not clearly winning, your opponent has plenty of material to beat you if you make any sort of mistake. I am going to deduct 5 minutes from your clock and the game continues. Oops. You are out of time. I declare the game over. You lose." > >>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. what are you basing this on? I have seen my program win _many_ games when the evaluation was as low as -6.0. I don't consider -2 against a human as anything serious enough to think about resigning over. > >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. wrong answer. Pushing a pawn _is_ progress. Because the move can't be undone. Hence the 50 move rule (this was why it was implemented as it was.) If I push a pawn enough, I run out of pushes. Then I either promote one or I stop making progress and the rule kicks in. But not in this position. > >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. He had _no_ case for a draw claim. Even claiming a draw there would be an instant loss because the arbiter would have to penalize his clock time. And any penalty would result in a time loss. > > >>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 chance.. I just got an email reply from an international arbiter I have known for 20+ years. His response was the same as mine. This draw offer would be instantly rejected and the player would be penalized for stopping the clock to make the claim. He said the criteria must be "easily won" by the side with no time left, and a single pawn would not be nearly enough unless it was a simple KP vs K that was known to be a draw. And even then he would make the player demonstrate for a few moves that he knew how to draw it. or win it if he could, in order to claim the draw. > > >>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 have attended many events with GM players. I have watched them try to win on time. Do wild time scrambles. play 3 move draws to get to bed early. But I have definitely seen 'em play the clock game... > > >>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? It depends on the operator. If the operator is slow, and the human is fast, the computer has no chance. > > >>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. how about 90 60? > > >>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. OK. In the above game, the GM could _not_ claim a draw. He had 2 minutes left. He did _not_ have an easy win. One mistake would be all Fritz needed. And a mistake was likely in the time left to the human. No draw claim was possible. No arbiter or TD would give it a moments thought before rejecting it outright and penalizing the player making the claim. I have addressed your claim. The position does _not_ fit the rule. > > >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.