Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:26:11 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 15:14:06, Ed Panek wrote: >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? There is no formal rule but there is a practical rule that says that Gm's usually resign in positions like the position of Fritz against kramnik. I believe that most GM's are going to resign in the same position that Deep Fritz resigned and maybe even in an earlier position. 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.