Author: Matthew Barnett
Date: 12:50:30 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 15:27:40, Pierre Bourget 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 > >He was not in time trouble after the move 57.Rd5+ since the time control at move >56 was already reached. > >Pierre Hi Pierre, I thought the significance of the 56th move was that after that Kramnik could choose to adjourn the game. Both sides were in the sudden death, second and last, time control - at least this is what I understood whilst tuned into ChessFM and watching it on ICC. Bests Matthew
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.