Author: Ed Panek
Date: 12:14:06 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 14:45:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 07, 2002 at 13:17:30, Matthew Barnett wrote: > >>I agree. There was still a little way to go for Kramnik. Given that Kramnik >>was way down on time (about 3 mins) compared to Fritz, I think this alone would >>have been a legitimate reason to play on. Your time trouble is something your >>opponent can use in their favour: it's part of the game. Otherwise, why have >>clocks? >> >>Bests >> >>Matthew >> > >I think that you underestimate kramnik if you think that he can blunder in >that pawn endgame. > >The only reason to continue is to convince some people >who do not understand it. > >Uri The point isnt about blundering though..its about sweat and work. Its an 8 game match. For the match to be level Fritz should use all advantages even if the return is immediately nil. The long term effects on Kramnik might be worth it. IF you are cycling the tour de france and after the second leg you are losing to the leader, do you simply stop pushing the leader because he has won this leg anyways? I dont. I make that guy work and think ok you beat me but see that I fight to the end. Now next time we race he thinks..well if I get the lead.. i must now worry about him not letting up on me and making me play every pebble and scrap of dirt on the track. Is there a rule somewhere that GM dont have to mate opponents? They just have to make it look like they will? Screw that. If im running fritz I say, if my forcing you to mate fritz forces you to use some more Dopamine and serotonin then so be it. You might need that extra strength in the next match. THis is war. Ed
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.