Author: Tina Long
Date: 19:09:36 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 22:00:11, odell hall wrote: > I still think that your overplaying the importance of time! Sure I will >agree that there is a huge difference between 5 0 chess or even 30 0 chess, >compared with 40\2. But I don't think the difference is so great between 60 0 >and 40/2. One hour is more than enough time for a Grandmaster to apply his so >called- Superior Chess knowledge, Many grandmasters calculate with incredible >speed and are much less likely to be beat on a tactical shot. If you notice the >three games that deep junior has played, he has won none of the games on >Cheapo's or due to petty oversights by the GM's. A few Grandmasters even >commented on Deep Junior Positional play. I find it hard to see how you can >suggest that the grandmasters will rise in strength by 300 rating points going >from 60 0 to 40/2. We are all chess players here, and I think most of us >realize that there is not much difference between 60 0 and 40/2, although I do >concede that there is a difference but I would say maybe a 50 point rating >increase is more reasonable, rather than the 300+ points that you suggest. BTW I >would appreciate an intelligent response devoid of insults or sarcastic remarks. > >Thanks > > Absolute rubbish!, In 40/120, an IM or a GM will sit for 10 or 20 minutes on a single move at the vital point of the game. There are regularly moves that take 5-10 minutes. These are the very important moves, the moves that make it a 40/120 Tournament game by an IM or GM. The IM or GM cannot afford that sort of time consumption in Game in 60. While what you say is correct for most moves of a game, it is completely wrong for the most important moves. Tina Long
This page took 0.01 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.