Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:02:01 -0400 
From: Ron_Kownacki@transarc.com
Subject: Re: computers that intentionally slip up (was Re: chinook)

> From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)

I keep on reading these OS-9 User Group posts, and figure that I must be
misinterpreting something somehow.  But the posts are getting really,
really weird ...

> However, I would like to say this:  The GREATER the difference between
> the ranks of the players, the MORE OFTEN the stronger player should
> resign in such a situation.  It is MORE sensible for the stronger player
> to resign under a tricky mate in 11 when there is a difference of 1000
> points in the rating, than when there is a difference of 100.

So Justin, how do you think strong players get to be strong players?
By resigning when they know they're technically lost?  I want to get paired
against some of these guys.

> The point being that, with such a large difference, the stronger player
> should be trying to play a flawless and pure game.  When your opp. is
> roughly equal to you, then pulling a few fast ones is more justifiable:
> they aren't expecting to learn from you, they're expecting a good game.

And why should a strong player have to play a flawless and pure game?
I would think strong players are primarily interested in winning.
That's how they get to be strong.  Of course they want flawlessness and
purity too.  Who doesn't?  And what do you mean by justifiable?  Chess
is a struggle, guy.  Justification is whatever works.

And why is a player expected to take the expectations of his opponent
as requirements?  I try to do what my opponent doesn't expect.  Is
that justifiable?  I wish my opponents would ask what I expect of them.

> I also think that, outside of tournament games, the stronger player
> should play "straight forward book chess" against a  hideously weaker
> player -- rather than playing strange and unusual moves designed to win
> an arcane advantage.  There is much more learning potential in it this
> way.  If I played against Karpov, and he played the sorts of things
> against me that he would play against Kasparov... well.. I don't think
> I would understand a whole hell of a lot of the game.  But if he played
> a straight forward game, and demolished me the "usual" way, I could
> probably learn enormously from it, and keep learning every time I went
> back to look at it.
>
           ...

> Justin
> sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin Wells)

Do you play tournament chess?  I only ask because I've never met a serious
player that has these kind of opinions, particularly not any strong player.
Quite frankly, they're kind of bizarre.

Are you a strong player?  If so, I sure hope we are paired some day!  You
will be the nicest strong player I've ever been paired against.  I will be
sure to let you know exactly when your play is becoming too arcane or
unjustifiable for my tastes.  I will demand that your moves have full
educational value.

Now I gave a draw to a master this weekend because I didn't feel confident
that I could win the ending in time pressure without blundering.  I sure
wish he would have had the decency to resign when he was busted in the
opening; I could have gone out to an early dinner and a cold beer.  It never
occurred to me to mention that his behavior wasn't appropriate.  Maybe I
should have insisted that he resign and buy a round.  Up till now, I haven't
had the guts to pull such a move, but next time I will try this.  If he
should somehow misunderstand and become angry, I will refer him to you,
Justin.  Is that OK?

If you're not a strong player, then why do you feel that strong players owe
something to their opponents?  Why should they take pains to demolish you in
a way that they're sure you'll be able to understand when you review the
game?  How are they supposed to know what you'll be able to understand?
Should you maybe become a strong player before giving your opinions on what
strong players should be doing?  That would be my personal approach, but
hey, I'm often unorthodox.

Ron Kownacki

Sorry about the sarcasm, but I have tried very, very hard to figure out what
the heck you're talking about, but I just can't.  There are only two ways
that I can rationalize it.  One is to assume that you're just kidding.  In
that case, congrats, you got a fish to rise and take the bait.  Ha, ha, we
all got a good laugh and I wasted some time.  The other is to assume that
you aren't a tournament chess player.  Which is it?




Newsgroups: newsgroup,rec.games.chess