Author: Manuel Rodriguez Blanco
Date: 20:16:56 02/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2000 at 22:52:50, odell hall wrote: >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 > > > Unfortunately you did not address the most important point of my post which is >the Question: How much of a rating increase do humans Gain going from 60 0 to >40/2? According to Larry kaufman human are 65 points stronger going from 30\0 >to 40/2, I expect 60 0 to 40/2 the increase would be even less. Mmmmm, let me say with your own words: "These type of dogmatic statements are taken for granted as fact because some self-proclaimed know it all has said so, without any proof. Please show me the proof!!" I mean can you give the L.Kaufman proof???????? The fact that >some grandmasters often spend 20 minutes on a given move doesn't neccessarily >prove that the move will be stronger, yes your are right BUT often grandmasters spend a hour on a move >to produce a blunder!! I have seen this often. Length does not always mean >Quality. Annand for instance has been known to spend less than 60 minutes for >an entire 40/2 game. Since you believe what I say is "Rubbish" Why don't you >please prove it and supply some concrete evidence which shows a 300pt increase >going from 60 0 to 40/2?? These type of dogmatic statements are taken for >granted as fact because some self-proclaimed know it all has said so, without >any proof. Please show me the proof!! Good point Tina
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.