Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 19:39:33 07/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2000 at 19:07:00, Derrick Wilson wrote: > > First of all I wasn't "complaining", rating points have very little meaning >for me. I was just sharing with the group, these games because, I had never seen >a human beat a computer in this way. And yes I think it was poor sportsmanship >of the human, when a computer wins on time, it is not a "conscious" decision so >it is rediculous to compare the human with the computer, which is simply a >Lifeless "thing" with no will. However the human is counsciously taking >advantage of the computers lack of "awareness",. It would not have been so bad >if the human was attempting to win, but he started the game with the intention >of abusing the computer. Why you cannot see the obvious is quite baffling to me. >Another problem is that the human is getting rating points that he doesn't >deserve, He distorts the rating process though abusing Icc's lack of protocol >for this type of situation, thus corrupting the rating process. Do you honestly >believe that the human deserves Rating points for winning in such a "Shady" >fashion. Would you feel Satisfied with your chess skill if you won in this way? > On ICC I have lost (and won) hundreds of games on time. Many are bullet (under 3 min / game, many blitz 3-10 min, and some 'standard' of over 10 min per game. Early on, I commented with exasperation to a person who beat me by winning on time [after he got a significant time advantage (probably was a bullet game)--simply by making moves as fast as possible, with no attempt to win material or checkmate, but solely to outplay me on the clock] that he wasn't really playing chess. My opponent replied something like: "Don't you get it, this isn't ....ing chess!" I didn't appreciate the language, but I later understood his point. Bullet chess is not simply about who plays better chess, but who can make faster moves and win (also) on the clock. It is chess under *extreme* clock conditions, where proper (or improper) use of the clock often determines who wins. Merely winning a piece or two, and being ahead per general chess guidelines, is not enough. You still have to complete the game (mate or draw) with more time than your opponent, or you will lose. Stronger players often (but not always) resign when a lost position appears in bullet chess--apparently at their level the joy (mutually defined) is in trying to outplay your opponent, and the clock stuff is secondary in many cases. Me, I play as fast as I can, even down a piece--trying to win, but simply to move fast on the clock if necessary to wear my opponent down and win on time. Their are many techniques to do this well--checking your opponent, even if senseless. While they try to move another piece illegally, before realizing that they have to get out of check, they lose precious seconds on their clock. In OTB blitz games with friends, I abhor excessive clock pounding (ruins the equipment needlessly) solely to win on time. All the clock slapping and piece pounding doesn't prove anything about who plays (fast) chess better, but the degeneration into moving fast becomes a worthless goal. Yet we do it, even I, in the seeking of a win under the heat of bullet or blitz battle. --Steve
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.