Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 09:46:04 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 08:05:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 00:39:05, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On February 03, 2003 at 23:28:21, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On February 03, 2003 at 19:45:29, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>><snip> >>>>>A pity that you do not read. Show events are NOT a possible tool to calculate >>>>>the strength. And hard competition doesn't exist. That's it. I still hold >>>>>that comps are 2400 at best in fierce tournament chess. >>>> >>>>haha >>><snip much laughter) >>> >>>Not the best debating technique. fwiw, I agree with Rolf. The games are >>>interesting, and I enjoy analyzing them with my program, but there is no real >>>competition here at all. It's not a sham, but it's not real, either. >>> >>>I was going to compare this to pro wrestling, but it really is more like boxing. >>> Boxing appears to most people as a legitimate competition, and sometimes it is. >>> But the way money is made is to divide the purses, sometimes over several >>>fights. Then there's the gambling aspect, which applies to both. >>> >>>It is a show, and the gullible are taken in. That's fine, I don't care that >>>much. It's obvious how to make it real, but that won't happen, there's too much >>>to be made on the show. If anyone believes Kasp and Kram were actually trying >>>their best in their respective matches, then there's nothing I can say to >change your minds. >>> >>>Will >> >> >>Will, I'm surprised. I expected this from Rolf and some of the other conspiracy >>theorists, but not from you. > >Please behave here in CCC. Calling people conspiracy theorists. You don't know >what you are talking about! > Call yourself whatever you like. Conspiracy theorist is one of the kindest descriptions I could think of. > >> >>Kasparov is already a multi-millionaire. He doesn't need the money. > > >How do you know? He has lost half of his money in wild speculations. And he's >greedy! Duh! > > > >>Having >>watched him play for almost 20 years, I'm convinced that he is motivated by >>pride and ego *much* more than money. > > >You've watched him play for 20 years! And therefore you can reason properly and >be a rocket chess scientist? What a hoax. People who publish their opinions here >are discriminated as conspiracy theorists by you and you think that you can >judge anything at all? Get real, man! Pride? If pride would guide him he >wouldn't appear on press conferences like a mad kid. How could you judge that? >Ego. A concept mostly misunderstood by lay. At least you should stop to insult >people as xonspiracy theorist. Otherwise I call you an exorcist. Ok? > LOL. Exorcist is fine with me. That's pretty much exactly the role I'm playing here. > >> >>If you think Kasparov is intentionally playing bad moves to keep the match >>interesting, please point out the mistakes along with the clearly better move he >>could have played. I can only think of 32. Rh5 and 33. Ng6+, both from game 3, >>and the refutation is a fairly deep and complex line - the kind that even >>Kasparov can miscalculate. > >Perhaps for your understanding of chess. But to Kasparov Nd4 is cake. Here is the only line that refutes it. 32. Rh5 Nxd4 33. Ng6+ Kg8 34. Ne7+ Kf8 35. Rxh7 Nb3+ 35. Kc2 Na1+ 36. Kc3 Qd2+ 37. Kc4 b5+ 38. Kc5 Qd6++ Completely refreshed, I agree that Kasparov should see that pretty easily, but after 4 hours of play, fatigue can make you miss moves like 35. Na1+ >Don't >bother to answer my statement that the hedgehog without counter attack is a >rotten egg! Thank you. Stop copying too much from what others said, begin to >think on your own! Thank you. > Speaking of thinking on your own, please provide some concrete analysis of the b5 and/or d5 breaks that were available to Kasparov. Just a few lines that clearly improve on his play should be sufficient. Thank you. >> >>I think if you compare the quality of these games with the quality of his games >>against top-level GMs, you won't find much disparity. > > >ROFL > Again, please provide some analysis of the obvious blunders, along with your improvements. > > >> >>Finally, are you sure you're a strong enough chess player to make such strong >>judgments about the quality of his play? > >Mean ad hominem! Are _you_ strong enough? No, I know that you don't understand >these games. Not different from his other GM games. LOL > Yes, I think I am probably strong enough. IMO the games have been of a very high quality. I look forward to seeing your analysis that improves on Kasparov's play. Rest assured that I will ignore any reply from you that does not contain analysis of specific variations. -Peter
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.