|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-22-11
 | | Eggman: How has "premature" not been established? GM Shipov implied (and I'm more than good enough at chess to see this for myself) that there was play in the position, which makes a declaration of a draw premature *by defintion*. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: I already covered it all, and multiple times...in vain it seems . Shipov clearly stated his POW on whether they should play on or not . So neither to him, nor to me the ˝link˝ you established is obvious. And misusing his words to conclude what he never had in mind will not help your matter much. |
|
| May-22-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <bronkenstein: <We can all understand why they drew in 14 moves> doesnt go along very well with < I can't see a compelling reason why they should be allowed to in the first place> . If you really understood the former , you wouldn`t even think of saying the latter > No. I understand- given the fact that they were allowed to do so- why they did. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: So, what was it, in your understanding , that made them draw ? |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: There seems to be confusion here regarding two separate matters: chess, and chess ethics. To review, Shipov said two separate things: a) playing for a win by either player would entail risk, and Gelfand took a draw "from a position of strength" b) the players are not to be blamed (judged?) for agreeing to a draw Now then, (a), which is strictly a chess matter, clearly establishes that there was play in the position, which makes it premature, by definition, to declare it a draw. On the other hand, (b) is Shipov's opinion regarding a matter of chess ethics (as opposed to chess per se, i.e. the evaluation of a chess position), in this case whether players can agree to a draw when there is still play left in the position. Apparently his opinion regarding this ethical matter is that they are blameless. I am perfectly free to disagree with his opinions on chess ethics, which I do, although, as I have said, FIDE is more to blame for allowing the players to agree to a premature draw than the players are for actually doing so. To sum up:
1) the draw undoubtedly was premature, as testified to by Shipov under (a) above 2) as a GM Shipov is not necessarily an authority on chess *ethics* or sports *ethics*, and if he thinks that such draws are OK (*if* he does), then he is wrong 3) although such premature draw agreements are wrong, it is hard to blame the players given that: i) they're allowed to do so
ii) it is often in their self-interest to do so
iii) virtually everyone else does it
4) Given (3), ultimately FIDE (and other organizers and governing bodies) is to blame for not prohibiting such premature draw agreements in the first place. |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: Further to (4) above, not only FIDE but complacent fans, including GMs like Shipov, are to blame for creating / maintaining a chess culture in which premature draws are condoned. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: <(a), which is strictly a chess matter...> Deciding whether to take risk or not is human decision. Risk is by no means chess specific. <Shipov is not necessarily an authority on chess *ethics* or sports *ethics*> You have any specific authorities on chess ethics in mind? ... (CBA)...
In logic , it is well known that you can conclude whatever you want from wrong premises , a thing which politicians and lawyers like to abuse a lot. |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: <<Deciding whether to take risk or not is human decision. Risk is by no means chess specific.>> I was trying to establish that there was play left in the final position. To show this I cited Shipov's statement that playing on would have entailed risk. This fact was gleaned from looking at the final position on a chess board and seeing that there was life there, and it *is* therefore strictly a chess matter. Whether one decides to take the risk in question is a separate matter entirely, and falls under chess ethics. <<You have any specific authorities on chess ethics in mind?>> I do not need to maintain that there are any authorities on chess ethics in order to assert that Shipov isn't one. My point was that bringing the game to a premature halt was an ethical matter, and we're not beholden to GM Shipov's opinions regarding such ethical matters. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: Also , <there was play left in the final position> , repeated many times in various forms , is also very dubious construction . Computers will show you equality , both players judged it as the point they should draw @ , and BTW ( a propo the way you concluded it from Shipov) you can take risks even in an equal position . <This fact was gleaned from looking at the final position on a chess board and seeing that there was life there> I wish i had it so simple. |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: The fact that a position is equal does not mean that it is devoid of play, and does not give anyone the right to declare it a draw. "Equal" is very far from "dead draw." |
|
May-22-11
 | | Penguincw: They better bring us much better chess tomorrow. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: You can take risk risk even in position with no <play left> , to use your favorite term , whatever it might mean. (unless you assume that <no play left> = <dead draw> , ie players should be whipped like slaves into playing anything to the bare kings ... which just makes another type of mistake). As long as you think that your own judgement is superior to the top GMs one ( and and especially its ´ethical´ part , if we , for a moment, accept that things can be separated that way artificially ) , your mind will not be opened for complex situation they found themselves in . The easiest job on this world is to criticize , count moves (!) and then point fingers . And on the ´History of GM draws´ , different persons and organizations were trying to eliminate that ´evil´ for quite a long time , from simply not counting the draws in tournaments , forcing players to replay the (drawn) game on and on until it produces a winner , counting wins only in WC matches , reducing prizes per draw made etc , and the conclusion is that one simply can not (and should not, IMO )legislate against the draw . BTW the last paragraph is kinda offtopic here , since the game we are discussing is not a typical GM draw ie it has more content than some flat 40movers. |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: I think this subject has been debated rather poorly in the past, with people complaining about "GM draws" for the wrong reasons, and making bad arguments against GM draws, so that others are wasting time and energy countering bad arguments, etc, and then misattributing these bad arguments to others like me. <Bronkenstein>, I made a point of saying that the number of moves is a red herring, and I disagree with a lot of the measures that have been taken against "GM draws" in the past, which is yet another reason why I support Sofia rules in the first place. Sofia rules don't force players to play to bare kings, nor do they concern themselves with number of moves played, etc. The spirit of Sofia rules is that players can agree to a draw if the position is drawn, which is surely the origin of the draw agreement rule in the first place. This means that a game of chess ends when virtually any other game or sport ends: when it's over*. *or at least over for all practical purposes |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: There is another interesting idea, applied in the american championship this year . The (supposed) tiebreaks would consist of rapid armagedon , prior to which players do the licitation of this kind: they start with normal time for black player, and bid it lower and lower , untill one gives up. So, the winner ends with , lessay, 10 minutes against 25 , plus playing black, but having draw ods , ie playing on 2 results. Some kind of chess+bridge crossover. Then, speaking of GM draws , I like the footbal scoring system (though in short matches of this kind, where , normally , one victory decides all,in case there is classical victory at all , that system wouldn´t change much ) , and I could accept The Sophia Rules , though many GMs would argue against that . I pointed out the number counting , since I still see no other serious criterion for separating ´bad´ and ´good´ GM draws in your posts )besides still mysterious ´insight´ you claim to have connected to <play left> in the game . So we are still on numbers , although you formally declined that as a parameter ( pretty much the only rational POW regarding that ´method´ anyway). |
|
| May-22-11 | | Everett: Am I the only one here who doesn't know how he feels about this draw? Here's just my two cents: is it possible that Gelfand, having tested this position at home, understands the contours of the coming positions better, and felt that Grishuk was not in danger of going wrong? Another idea, if similar position showed up on the board at move 35 in mutual time-trouble, would a draw be more acceptable? Finally, if either player should take more blame, should it be Grischuk the pawn up as white who offered it in the first place or Gelfand with good play, the two bishops with black? |
|
May-22-11
| | Eggman: <<Another idea, if similar position showed up on the board at move 35 in mutual time-trouble, would a draw be more acceptable?>> Again, number of moves in irrelevant. If you've somehow reached a dead draw after 14 moves, fine, and if you haven't done so after 214 moves, the play on. And no draw agreements should be allowed during a mutual time scramble. Let the players play until they've reached a position that a qualified arbiter would recognize as a dead draw. This is the lesser of two evils when compared to a premature peace declaration. Again, a game of chess should be played until it is, for all practical purposes, over, just like any other game or sport. |
|
| May-22-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <Then, speaking of GM draws , I like the footbal scoring system (though in short matches of this kind, where , normally , one victory decides all,in case there is classical victory at all , that system wouldn´t change much ) ,> Just like any scoring change that treats all wins and draws as being of equal value, it wouldn't change anything in matches of any length. |
|
| May-22-11 | | bronkenstein: <Just like any scoring change that treats all wins and draws as being of equal value, it wouldn't change anything in matches of any length.> Obviously , I overlooked that simple fact.
But what amuses me is that you nitpicked that sideline remark , not too relevant to the heart of the topic ( the discussed game ), while overlooking my simple question aiming for the very heart of the discussion , namely <So, what was it, in your understanding , that made them draw ?>. |
|
May-23-11
 | | FSR: "G" is for gutsy.
Reminds me a lot of the immortal Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 game, where Marshall as Black stunned Capablanca with a pawn sacrifice on move eight, then the players agreed to a draw five moves later. Oh wait, that's not how it happened. |
|
| May-23-11 | | nuwanda:
what i dont get about this game:
Grischuk played the rather rare line 9.g3. So we can take almost for sure that he prepared this at home and, of course, looked at it with the computer. But 9...b5 is, after some thought, Rybka's, Stockfish's and Houdini's first choice. So why in the world could he be surprised by 9...b5 ? ... |
|
| May-23-11 | | Pensive: If I understand <Eggman> and others correctly, they're saying that GMs shouldn't be allowed to agree to a draw unless it's a theoretically drawn postion. Why not? Both Grischuk and Gelfand put effort into this game, and both decided it was justifiable to take the draw. It's not like they played 1.e4 e5 draw, then took the day off. Both players put thought into this game and came up with interesting ideas. Admittedly, I would have liked to see how the game would have played out, but I don't begrudge the players their right to agree to a draw in this position. |
|
| May-23-11 | | bronkenstein: <FSR: "G" is for gutsy.
Reminds me a lot of the immortal Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 game, where Marshall as Black stunned Capablanca with a pawn sacrifice on move eight, then the players agreed to a draw five moves later. Oh wait, that's not how it happened.> Marshal´s computer was out of baterys , and he was heavy client of Capa´s anyway , they played it in tournament instead of WC match etc , not exactly the same situation. Not even remotedly so. |
|
| May-23-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <So, what was it, in your understanding , that made them draw ?> I was just surprised that you would ask such a silly question, since "why they decided to draw" is not something that's really under debate here. I'll go with their stated reasons. Do you still fail to grasp why "I can see why they did it, but I don't think it should be allowed?" involves no contradiction? |
|
| May-25-11 | | Everett: From <polarmis>s commentary <However, Shipov also noted that <Gelfand might be uncomfortable with his opponent having an extra pawn,> and that “a balance of interests” led to the draw, “for which no-one should be condemned”.> To me this sounds like an example of how computers have really flattened out styles. It seems to me that Gelfand would never have played into this position without a computer saying it is fine for black. It's possible, in other words, to play against one's own style. It leaves open the possibility that Gelfand was not quite comfortable in this position, despite surprising Grischuk with it. Also, judging by Grischuk's increased speed in response after the initial think on move 10, it is quite possible that he was more comfortable in the position, even if it was objectively equal. So let me reverse what I just said: it is really that, despite computer influence, style still matters. Put Kasparov, Topalov, Anand or any attacker on the black side of this position and you have a longer game with lots of ideas played out on the board IMHO. |
|
| May-26-11 | | bronkenstein: <Do you still fail to grasp why "I can see why they did it, but I don't think it should be allowed?" involves no contradiction?> It does not , and contradiction is your word , I didn´t use it. That little made up of yours is , obviously , why you got it all wrong . In connection to that <...since "why they decided to draw" is not something that's really under debate here> is another mistake , read more carefully next time. Your posts are not the only ones on this page , and even they contain things like <so why not have them actually play all 6>( as they did BTW , one by one ). Way too many people here behave like they´ve payed 1000$ for some suddenly interrupted Box match . Wrong logic , wrong sport. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
