Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:56:21 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 20:50:05, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >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: > Perhaps because I hoped to avoid having to type a detailed description of what I did? I didn't send the position to the arbiter. I did show it to two of the players on ICC. I described it to two others on ICC. The idea of being able to claim a draw was just so patently absurd... It didn't need much explanation for anyone I talked to. That was _not_ the purpose of the rule as written in the FIDE rules... >>>>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. The players I asked, I know very well. We chat and joke all the time. One of them actually thought I was pulling his leg with some sort of trick question. The response about sacrificing a knight was right in character with his usual good humor... > >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. Then log on to ICC, and look for a player with a GM or IM title and ask them. Isn't it easier to do the test for yourself to see if your results match mine, than to simply suppose that I didn't ask? > > >>>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. It is a pretty accurate description. He wasn't winning outright. And in light of being down to 2 minutes, I dont think he was winning at all. 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.