Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:57:05 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 12:46:04, Peter Kappler wrote: >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. Only because you have no idea what the term or the defining in reality means in a communication. It's a killer argument. I hope that you accept either the general definition or you come upwith an excuse. The term is insultive. Nothing else. > > >> >>> >>>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. As above you reveil a lack of understanding. You simply don't know what you are really saying. If you are happy to be judged as an exorcist. In special after you started calling me names. You shouldn't do that in CCC. > >> >>> >>>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. That was related to your pride and ego preaching. >> > >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 will wait and read the analysis Kasparov will give us. I am sure he will admit that he missed _several_ possibilities. But I never said that I am a GM and can analyse that game 4. But I still know the definition of a hedgehog. I know for sure that it's connected to the moves b5 or d5 as typical counterattacks. But look, your ego talk about Kasparov is more than just the repetition of a definition! You said that even show events would be a case for big ego input. And I simply refuse that as premature. > > >>> >>>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. I can already answer that question. Against GM Kasparov would have been toasted after his many N moves. > > >> >> >>> >>>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. Then you are not strong enough. Because you repeat the propaganda. In real these games show the complete superiority of Kasparov. And then we've just the little problem to answer why in hell he didn't win. You are the exorcist. Perhaps you know? > >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 Please ignore me, you might catch too much heat otherwise. A brain can overheat uring deep thoughts. :) BTW are you really on the trip that Email experts in chess are really good? How good are you in real chess? Rolf Tueschen
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.