From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)
Keywords: update
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.184033.3283@ists.ists.ca> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin) writes:
>...
>
>If I were put in a position where I had a choice between a sure loss
>(mate in 11), and a dreadful board position (down a queen) I would 
>consider two steps:
>
>(1) What is the possibility of getting a stalemate?
>(2) There's no stalemate possible?  Ok, I resign.
>

You wouldn't be at all curious to see if your opponent also saw the mate
in 11?  Remember, in the position that started this discussion, a GM
looked at the position for several minutes and didn't see the mate.  

The difference between broad and sharp lines is very important here.
Giving up lots of material transforms the position into one that any
patzer ought to be able to win.  If the alternative is a very sharp line,
where it is easy, even likely, that you opponent will go wrong,
there is no reason to resign until your opponent demonstrates that he
knows what he's doing. 

Taking this to extremes - I believe that the initial position is a draw
(the drawing window is large, the preponderance of GM games are drawn,
etc.).  That doesn't mean that I would accept a draw offer in that
position.  The point is to play a game, to engage in a contest - not to
prove a theorem. 

With a bit less justification: I believe that the Sicilian Dragon loses,
but I still like to play it from time to time.  Strangely enough - I
only play it now against *very strong* players.  Everyone seems to be
reaonably conversant with the sharp lines - but only the strong players
are willing (yea, eager) to deviate from "book knowledge".  They seem to
think that I have an improvement up my sleeve, and want to vary first.
Well, usually I don't.  Very embarassing when a weaker player simply
trots out the memorized line verbatim, and I'm left with a rotten
position.  I always feel badly after losing to a weak player with a good
memory.  On the other hand, I usually feel pretty good when a very
strong player beats me with a flashy new combination (a dime a dozen in
the Dragon...) that teaches me something.  Best of all - I feel
wonderful when that strong player tries that flashy combination, and I
see the refutation over the board.  

The competition is between players - not one player against the board.

A few months ago, we hashed out the old chestnut of "when to resign" -
where the question was about players who stay too long at the table,
invoking the old (and often good) rule: "no one ever won a game by
resigning".  My position then covers this situation, too:

    "Resign when: a) you know that your position is lost, and
                  c) your opponent has demonstrated that he
                     knows how to achieve the win."

There's nothing sillier than resigning, and then having to show your
opponent the win, in the skittles room.
(unless, of course, it's offering a draw and then having to show your
opponent the drawing line in the skittles room - which I did last month.
Believe me, it feels silly).
  
So, in the position Bob gave us, I would certainly resign rather than
sac the Queen just to delay the end of the game.  But, I would first
play on in the sharp line, prepared to resign if, and when, my opponent
got past the tricky bits.

-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess