Author: Francesco Di Tolla
Date: 01:52:38 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 09:45:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>No again: also doing it in the "worng way" is not correct. 9 explicitly states >>that one must not disturb referring to article 12 > > >I see no "disturbing" here. The rules allow a draw offer at any point, so long >as it is made on the clock of the player offering the draw. But even if it >is not offered correctly, a single draw offer is not cause for any sanction, >because one is not considered significant disturbance. Repeated offers on the >opponent's clock would be cause for sanctions of course... but not just one. Sorry but again, just one at the wrong moment, can be a disturbance. >Just look at the position. A simple pawn race where you promote first is easy >to win in a minute. This position was _not_ a simple pawn race or mate. It >was still full of potential problems for both sides. I would be happy to test >my hypothesis by playing _any_ GM you care to find from that position on ICC. >Give them 2 minutes on their clock, give Crafty 30 minutes on its clock. I >would expect a tactical oversight and would expect Crafty to at _least_ draw >that position with that kind of time handicap... I would be happy too, but I would have preferred to see Tiviakov to play undisturbed (again, if he was disturbed). >So we _always_ assume dark motives??? Seems to be a prevalent idea nowadays. I don't, in this case. I just stated Tiviakov protest had some grounds. I don't claim his request for a win is correct (still penalties can imply also a declaration of a lost game), but hi was not necessarely "whining" he "might" be right to say he was disturbed. regards Franz
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.