Author: Adrien Regimbald
Date: 17:50:05 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, >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... If that's what you did, why didn't you say so? You said: >>>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. Which seems to indicate that you asked whether or not a draw would be given "If the human was down on time, and up a pawn or two in material". I think the most likely thing to have said if you had actually asked about the particular position in question would be that they said "I would not award a draw in that position" or from the GM: "I don't think it is a sure win or draw from that position" rather than what you said. I am not going to debate whether you actually contacted these individuals because I really don't know - but I must admit the way you are presenting what these people said puts some serious doubts on the credibility of you having actually questioned these individuals. >>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. You are oversimplifying things in the extreme - you can be in a position where you are up two pawns and losing quite horribly. Saying Tiviakov was up two pawns does not sufficiently describe the position on the board. Perhaps if you ammended it: "Up two pawns when the opponent has no counterplay or any hope of winning or even drawing the game without a gross blunder on behalf of the human, when the human has a fairly straightforward method of winning, and easy lines to play for a draw any time he wanted to, and down on time." it would be more fitting, but even then details are left out. I don't think you are such a horrible chess player that you don't know that a 2 pawn advantage without knowing what the situation is on the rest of the board is completely meaningless information. 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.