Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:08:20 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 06:17:06, Hans Gerber wrote: >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. Sorry. Please rejoin the conversation when you know what you are talking about. ICC is about "human vs human" chess. Humans pay to play there. The computers that are there are a small percentage of the total population. > >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. > Do you think that GM players live in a vacuum? Several had _already_ asked me what I thought about the fiasco over there. They were aware of everything going on. > >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... > Right. Someone that knows me can't honestly answer a question that has nothing to do with any interest of mine...
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.