Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:45:05 10/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2004 at 19:36:21, Yar wrote: >On October 18, 2004 at 17:24:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 18, 2004 at 17:16:02, Gabor Szots wrote: >> >>>On October 18, 2004 at 16:54:53, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 18, 2004 at 14:50:06, Gabor Szots wrote: >>>> >>>>>Although - being a Hungarian - a bit sadly, let me congratulate Kramnyik on >>>>>defending his title. He deserves it. Yes, if Leko had won I would feel the same. >>>>>For me this match proves once again how hard it is not to lose when you don't >>>>>want to win. >>>> >>>> >>>>I do not understand. >>>> >>>>Leko had no reason not to want to win. >>>>He had only a reason not to want to lose. >>>> >>>>You do not want to win only if win is worse than a draw for you and it was not >>>>Leko's situation. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I meant his only goal was to achieve a draw, and this led to too passive play, >>>in which he is not good. >>> >>>Gábor >> >>This is a bad goal. >> >>a goal of getting at least a draw is more logical. >>Playing passive is not good for that goal because it does not increase the >>chances of achieving at least a draw. >> >>Uri > >Uri, > >Every professional player knows, if u _will_ play for draw, you will lose >someday. simple logic say that if you need a draw you should play in order to maximize your chances not to lose(it may mean forcing repetition in a slghtly better position but not playing in a passive way) It seems that your definition of playing for a draw is not the same as playing in order to maximize your chances not to lose. 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.