Author: odell hall
Date: 19:44:11 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 22:09:36, Tina Long wrote: >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 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.