Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:05:44 09/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 15:17:21, Joachim Rang wrote: >On September 06, 2002 at 12:24:58, José Carlos wrote: > >>On September 06, 2002 at 11:15:30, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2002 at 19:09:01, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2002 at 18:20:00, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 05, 2002 at 18:01:03, Stuzzi Kadent wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I do not play chess tournaments, but am aware of various time controls, and the >>>>>>perceived demand in the professional world (marketing, if not playing) for >>>>>>shorter time controls. >>>>>>I recognise it would be better to do away with adjournments because computers >>>>>>and databases deal with them too efficiently. >>>>> >>>>>I do not know about tournament with adjournments in the last years. >>>>>I remember tournaments with adjournments only many years ago. >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately it seems to me that tournament with adjournment are hostory. >>>>> >>>>>I do not buy the excuse that people can use computers in the adjournment because >>>>>in the past they could also use advices of other players in the adjournment so >>>>>if today computers are reason to avoid adjournment then it means that humans >>>>>were a good reason to avoid adjournment in the past. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> You got a point, but I disagree. I remember a Spain-ch (1994 I think). I was >>>>playing there but my results were quite bad. A friend of mine had an adjourned >>>>game against a very proud guy. My fiend was a pawn down in a rook ending. A >>>>frind of the other guy said "my friend's gonna win easily because I'm helping >>>>him analyze". So I took the bet and helped my friend. I didn't care standing >>>>awaken all night long because I had a bad tournament. >>>> So we did. >>>> At near 4am we found a very deep and interesting idea. We felt happy and kept >>>>analyzing. Later on we thoght it shold be drawn. I said "go to bed and sleep a >>>>couple of hours, I'll review the analysis. >>>> When he woke up, I told him everything seemed to be right, we reviewd all the >>>>lines and he went to play. I was crashing, but couldn't help watching the game. >>>>It was so exciting. >>>> There came a new adjournment, in a pawn ending. A pawn down, but most probably >>>>drawn. We went analyzing again. Draws everywhere. >>>> And again to play. Damn! the opponent had found something. It seemed he could >>>>win. I was dead tired and couldn't see a draw, but my friend thougth for half an >>>>hour and found a great idea. Final result: draw! >>>> I was sooo happy! >>>> Well, with computer analysis all of this is gone forever. That's very sad. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>> >>>On the contrary! With computers these analysis will go deeper and become more >>>interesting! Or do you think a computer can draw a rook- or pawnending (except >>>of 5-pieces of course) easily? I'm sure if someone only relies on the analyzes >>>of a computer for an endgame he'll get problems against opponents which analyses >>>with computer and (human) assistants. >> >> You're right in part. However, computers are the reason why adjournments don't >>exist anymore. That's the sad point. >> >> José C. > > >Is that the reason? I doubt it. I think adlournments don't exist anymore because >it makes a tournament longer and for the publich less intresting (the public >likes rapid chess, or at least the result on the same day). Why? What is the reason for the public to change opinions? I heard many years ago that the reason of stopping adjourned games is computers and not from someone in this forum. 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.