Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:21:42 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 18:39:47, Marc van Hal wrote: >On October 07, 2002 at 15:26:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >I am pretty sure most GM's would play on some moves. >And I even know Kramnik easely would have won that game >But on the board it is not so clear. >The etiquete where I was talking about is resign only when even a beginner knows >how to win that position. >And that stage was not reached yet. >I can show you a position where the Fritz team would have resigned while 2 moves >later the game was a draw and the oponent then did resign in the equal position. >How stupid can you be! > >Marc I know a lot of cases when one side resigned after losing a piece in the opening or the middle game. I think that winning a won pawn endgame is a simpler task. 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.