Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:17:06 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2000 at 21:56:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > In case it might interest you let me tell you that the bias of your poll is obvious. Not that you biased anything with your intentions by asking special questions but by the situation as such. In other words, if you ask someone on ICC, which is a computerchess oriented site by definition, you might get answers sympathizing with the "computer side" of your question and case. Also to assume that the persons you have asked didn't know about the actual discussion about events in the Netherlands is surely a mistake. Not that you have made that mistake. Baseline, you have to be very careful in interpreting the reactions on your little poll. The fact alone that your friends know you is enough to bias their reactions... > > >> >>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.