Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:28:45 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 20:11:08, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >Hello, > >>I only personally know one arbiter. I know several GM players. I asked two >>GM players on ICC, one IM on ICC, one GM via phone, and the one arbiter I know >>via email. _none_ thought it a reasonable interpretation of the rules to allow >>a draw just because the human was down on time, and up a pawn or two in >>material. One GM laughed and asked "Does that mean that if my opponent gets >>into time trouble, and I sac a knight to start an attack, that he can now >>claim a draw since he is almost out of time, and has more material?" > > >Please quit misrepresenting what I say! If someone asked me: "Should someone be >given a draw just because they are up two pawns but down on time?" My answer >would be: "No" !! You are presenting the situation in a light that the people >you are asking are going to say no, and that is an extremely poor manner of >trying to prove your point. Of course they are going to say no when you present >it like that, I would say no too. Now you know how I asked them? Suppose I were to give you a name of a GM on ICC and had you ask him about the discussion. Suppose he told you "No, he didn't ask such a question, he asked me to look at a position, and then he asked me if I thought a draw claim could be made based on FIDE rules."??? I didn't bias the question. I showed _the_ position. I explained the clock situation. I explained how Frans had offered a draw. And then waited for their comments.. simple, really... > You are catering the way you ask your >question to these people in such a way that they will respond in the way that >you want. I am not going to argue with you over this unless you can get the >issue straight - I did not at any point say that the draw being given was >because "Player x is up two pawns and down on time" - that is something that you >came up with on your own. That _was_ the situation in the game. > I was discussing the position in the game Fritz vs >Tiviakov before the operator offered the draw. That very position in >particular, not some general criteria of being up two pawns and down on time. >If you can't discuss this issue based on the merits of claims actually made, >please don't waste our time with further opinions from people you know about an >issue completely misrepresented from the one at hand. > Please don't tell me how I asked a question, when you have no clue about what I did at all. The real position was used for discussion. No one thought that with 2 minutes left, a win could be considered a sure thing. Nor even a draw. >An analogy to what you are doing: > >You've been asked to invite all of the local masters to a special tournament. >You don't want player x to attend the tournament because you don't get along >well with him. However, you are obligated to at least make an effort to ask >him, so you call up player x and say: "Would you like to come to this tournament >I am holding? It is not really a very important or prestigious tournament and >nobody interesting is showing up though" What do you think the answer is likely >to be? You already know what the answer is going to be! You are setting up >player x to give the response you want - "No, I'm sorry, I don't think I will >attend". You are doing the same thing in your presentation of this situation to >that arbiter and whatever GMs you have asked about this. > >If you are more interested in proving your point at all costs than you are in >finding out the truth, please keep your opinions to yourself. > > >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.