Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:42:03 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 13:46:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 29, 2002 at 13:01:24, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>Please see: >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?226863 >> >>w.b.r. >>Otello > > >What does that have to do with the point I made? Smirin was _winning_ in >the first three games. He won one and drew the other two due to making >mistakes, most likely caused by time pressure in the fairly short time >control used... > >He should have lost against Junior. That would have been three wins, then >a loss and then a draw and another win against tiger, out of six games... > >Smirin was lucky to get to play Junior again rather than losing. But then >he was very unlucky to lose two won games and having to settle for draws due >to time problems. > >He is still less "lucky" than the programs, in that regard... The question is what is the definition of being lucky. I do not think that missing a win means being unlucky. If a player gets a winning position in all of his games and lose or draw big part of them because of time trouble than he is not unlucky. In this case the player has a weakness that the opponents takes advantage of it. If smirin regular ability is often not enough to win won positions at 60 10 time control then it is not luck. The time control is not luck but something that the players agreed before the game. The fact that smirin could probably do better at tournament time control is irrelevant for deciding if smirin was lucky. If smirin scores better than the average result that he can expect based on his ability then he is lucky. If he scores worse than the average result that he can expect then he is unlucky. Uri
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.