Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 14:39:25 07/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2001 at 17:14:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On July 21, 2001 at 15:51:30, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>The fact the he hates the computers reinforce his motivation to beat them, and >>accordingly the specialistic preparation needed against them. > >He hates to play -against- computers. He doesn't hate the >machines per se. It doesn't necessarily improve his motivation. I meant computers playing chess. > >For all we know he could have thought: ok bucks for playing >against that can, lets see how I do. i.e. no preparation at >all > >>>I don't think this match means much (this is my opinion, feel free to >>>disagree) for either argument. >> >>I disagree for this simple fact : it wasn't just one game match and neither a >>blitz match. So the result is _very_ significative since it is a six-game match >>and moreover on regular tournament time. > >It not very significant because there was only _one_ opponent. > What about Kramnik vs. DF in October ? >>Hubner is only a single opponent, which >>>isn't remotely as representative as playing a full field of GM's (as >>>Tiger has done). Also, this is a match, so matchplay strategies apply. >> >>What do you mean for matchplay strategies ? > >He can draw all save the last and win. If you would calculate ELO >from that you would get a much too high figure because there was no >pressure to win the first few, just drawing was enough. > >>De gustibus non disputandum est. > >True. > >Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. Let's add : "Gens una sumus". Regards.
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.