Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 03:37:06 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 04:52:38, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >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. Over a longer period Franz has now explained that _his_ point was not one of any bad motives or intentions by F. Morsch but one of a disturbance resulting of the one draw offer in that particular situation. That point can not be pushed aside by hypostating a thinking fixed on "dark motives" on Franz' side or by explaining how a GM should be happy to get a draw offer because he would surely lose against Crafty in such a position with only two minutes left... Fact is that Tiviakov _was_ irritated and blundered away a clear win. No poll among your friends on ICC or your own chessic judgement on the position can change that fact. Does the declaration by Tiviakov have no meaning at all for you. Are you not hypostating and fantasizing about "dark motives" on Tiviakov's side? One could hypostate a clear tendency of a biased reasoning in R. Hyatt. Hans > >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.