Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:14:36 10/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2003 at 16:27:26, stuart taylor wrote: >On October 15, 2003 at 05:26:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 15, 2003 at 04:16:59, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 2003 at 03:39:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 14, 2003 at 23:32:08, K. Burcham wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>28. white is up +2.41 >>>>> black is up +5.81 >>>>>29. white mate in 9 >>>>> black is up +8.39 >>>>>30. white is up +2.62 >>>>> black is up +8.89 >>>>>31. white is up 6.55 >>>>> black resigns >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>next move from this position is 28.Kg2 >>>>> [D] 1r4k1/R4pp1/8/5Qp1/p7/1q1PP1P1/5P1P/1rR3K1 w - - >>>> >>>> >>>>I do not believe that GM's played that move >>>>I guess that there was simply a mistake in writing the game. >>>> >>>>It is not a bad idea to use common sense before posting. >>>> >>>>Even weak player will not play 28.Kg2 that is a simple losing of a rook so it >>>>does not make sense to believe that GM's played it. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I believe that ANY human can not think for a momment, and can imagine that e.g. >>>the rook is protected e.g. by the queen (because of optical illusion), or simply >>>was thinking about something else and forgot about the rook being en prise. >>>I'm not saying that it should be a common thing! >> >>If it was one blunder maybe but the sides continued to blunder so I am >>practically sure that the moves were not played and it is more logical to guess >>that the sides were in time trouble and forgot to write the moves or that the >>people who copied the moves for got to copy. >> >>I play against significantly weaker players and I do not remember optical >>illusion like that. >> >>The probability for it to happen to both players is too small to have reasonable >>doubt about it so I am sure that the moves that were posted were not played in >>the game. >> >>I remember only one case some years ago when the opponent left the queen in the >>wrong square so I captured his queen(he tried to correct it and said that he did >>not mean to put it on that square and I believe him but the rules say that if >>you left the queen on e2 even for only 1/4 second it is your problem even in >>case that you meant to put it at d2). >> >>That tournament was active chess(30 minutes per game) and I know that a player >>with rating near 2000 does not leave his queen at distance of one from my rook >>on purpose. >>Unfortunately I have not enough time to win that game and that game was drawn >>but without the queen I could lose the game because of not having enough time. >> >>Uri > >True, It's unlikely that both have optical illusions at the same time, unless >they are both affected by the same wanton spirit! (seriously, there CAN be such >causes imo. But people here think it is an insult to their intelligence to >believe such things, so that's not a discussion for now). >Is it really true that according to the rules, you can take your finger off the >moved piece for up to 1/4 of a second, and then take back? >S.Taylor No The rules says that when you left the piece the move cannot be changed. 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.