Author: blass uri
Date: 08:21:36 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 10:25:42, blass uri wrote: >On May 17, 2000 at 10:08:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 17, 2000 at 05:34:20, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On May 16, 2000 at 23:30:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 16, 2000 at 17:16:08, Hans Gerber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 16, 2000 at 09:43:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>And I think what he did was a perfectly acceptable action. Sudden death and >>>>>>computers do _not_ mix if you add humans into the mix. I have done the same >>>>>>thing to GM players on ICC many times. They always instantly ask "Why did you >>>>>>do that?" After I explain that I would rather draw a won game, or resign a >>>>>>drawn game, in order to keep them coming back and playing more games, they >>>>>>usually respond "OK, thanks..." >>>>> >>>>>Let's analyse. >>>>> >>>>>You don't insist on winning a won game and sometimes you prefer to make a draw. >>>>>(That is your opinion, but I want to say that you had no obligation to do it.) >>>>> >>>>>You don't insist on drawing a drawn game and sometimes you prefer to lose. >>>>>(That is your opinion, but I want to say that you had no obligation to do it.) >>>>> >>>>>Ah, you forgot the following cases, let me just take one of them. >>>>> >>>>>You have a lost position and you do _what_? You propose a draw?? Comparing this >>>>>with your confession above I am sure that you won't behave like that. I would >>>>>agree. You should not go for a draw in lost positions. _Although_ I am sure that >>>>>you could win a lot more points because programs are much better than humans in >>>>>such time trouble. But you would lose the GMs as opponents. >>>> >>>> >>>>I am about to win on time. If time was not an issue, I would be about to lose >>>>although it is going to take lots of time. I have three options. >>>> >>>>(1) I continue to play claim a win when your flag falls. I win. >>>> >>>>(2) I offer a draw. That gives you 1/2 point more than you would get had I >>>>played on and let you run out of time. >>>> >>>>(3) I resign. I managed my time better, but by doing so I overlooked a tactic >>>>you spotted and took advantage of. Even though I managed my time better, I >>>>throw that out the window and let you win. >>>> >>>>Which is better? (2) or (3)? (2) seem like the proper thing to do, assuming >>>>I care about how you feel about the game. I'm not really interested in throwing >>>>the full point away, just because I managed my time well but you didn't. I'm >>>>not really interested in running your flag out, for whatever reason. (2) is >>>>_the_ right choice. >>>> >>>>I don't have any great respect for a GM above anyone else. Frans has a _lot_ >>>>of blood, sweat and tears invested in the software program named "Fritz". Don't >>>>_ever_ forget that. I can't say whether he has sweated more than the typical >>>>GM. But I am pretty sure he hasn't sweated _less_. So Frans deserves the GM's >>>>respect just as much as the GM deserves Frans'. quid pro quo. The draw was a >>>>mutually respectable outcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Now my question. Why do you think F. Morsch's action was acceptable? >>>> >>>> >>>>See above. The legitimate result was 0-1 for the human. no points. Frans >>>>turned that into 1/2-1/2, which is better than 0-1. >>> >>>I think that the assumption that the GM could not draw the final position >>>against everybody in 2 minutes/game is wrong. >>> >>>I think that GM's can draw the final position against every human or computer. >>> >>>Assuming that it is possible to win on time from the final position is an insult >>>against tiviakov. >>> >>>I believe that a GM can do more than 100 moves in 2 minutes without blundering >>>from the final position. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Why? he had _already_ blundered away a sure win, in time trouble. I have seen >>'em hang pieces... overlook mates in 1, etc.. > >Yes but trying to draw is more easy then trying to win and if he wanted a draw >he had no problem not to change the pawn structure on the board. > >He blundered when he played Kxf5 and this move changed the pawn structure on the >board. >In the final position he has one pawn advanatge and I believe that he can keep >the pawn structure static. > >I think that the only way that the GM could lose is by trying to win. > >Uri I can add that the GM did not blunder from the computer's point of view. The evaluation went down but only slowly and I do not see big changes of more than 0.5 pawns after tiviakov's moves. It may be a bigger blunder but computers cannot see it in a short time so he did not do a stupid blunder. I believe that his claim that the draw offer disturbed him is only an excuse and he would do the same moves even if the operator of fritz said nothing. I see that he could not prevent changing the pawn structure from the position that Fritz offered a draw because Fritz had some threats and it seems that Fritz had chances to cause problems by lines like Nc4+ Kd3 Nd6 Nd4 Ne4 Rg2 Ng5 with a possible h6 later. Uri
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.