Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:04:49 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
>>Yes, this is the 3rd time I see him try to debate this, but there have no doubt
>>been others I was fortunate enough to miss. I gunned this idea down a long time
>>ago, showing that many of the brilliancies and lines played by today's masters
>>could not necessarily be found on their own by them. The example I gave was
>>simply Marshall's gambit in the Ruy. No one played it prior to him, even though
>>he had it up his sleeve for 10 years as the story goes, and after, it fell into
>>disrepute for 30 years until some Russian analysts came upon ...c6. Again, no
>>one before saw this, so why presume that all of today's masters could come up
>>with both 9...d5 AND ...c6 on their own without benefitting from their
>>predecessors' analysis? Just a rehash of old stuff for a new audience.
>>
>> Albert
>
>
>I invite also Mr. Silver to behave. I don't rehash,
Repeating the same debate and arguments is rehashing.
>I have no agenda,
I wasn't aware I said you had an agenda either.
>There is one good counterargument.
>
>People here (also Bob) claimed that also masters and GM would do that all the
>time. Only they have a good memory and don't need a book to save the lines. But
>is that really true? Do GM play on a base of other experts??? Of course not.
That is a statement declaring your ignorance. There are SO MANY examples that it
boggles the mind. Here are two quick ones just for your entertainment:
In Tal's autobiographical book, he relates an episode where prior to playing a
round in a tournament he had received a new issue of a Russian chess magazine.
In it was an article publishing analysis by a master player known to Tal. He
looked over the article rather quickly and thought the line was good to play. As
coincidence went, his opponent obliged and Tal quickly found himself completely
lost! Tal was very upset and called up the master (I think it was the magazine's
editor) to complain on the bogus analysis. The master explained that had Tal
actually turned to the next page he'd have seen that the line was refuted
exactly as his opponent played!
As you know, Anand has a game that he lost in a record 6-7 moves. Do you know
how or why? Anand himself explained that he saw the opening analyzed in the
Informant and didn't bother checking any of the analysis. As a consequence he
fell for a 2-move tactic that won a piece. Even a genius such as himself
followed the moves so blindly he failed to see a simple 2-move shot.
Albert
>To
>believe it is simply premature. Of course such analyses could come from others
>but they are then analysed by the GM themselves.
>
>Ok, it's true, we could NEVER make sure that a comp-human game is _absolutely_
>fair. But we should, no, we must, define clear limits for the computer side, who
>is normally without any kind of limits if comp-comp. But against human players
>that must be done.
>
>And now everybody can see that my point has zero to do with Mr. Silvers Marshall
>Gambit. What the gentleman does is odd defamation because he simply doesn't get
>the true content of my point.
>
>To Sarah I say, please try to find open questions in my description and I will
>try to respond. To Mr. Silver, this was the last answer, because you have an
>agenda and are not interested in the development of new features for comp-human
>games. I have no interest in continual bashing and defamation.
>
>Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.02 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.