Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:53:34 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 10:37:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 07, 2003 at 10:23:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 07, 2003 at 09:49:22, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 07, 2003 at 09:31:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 07, 2003 at 09:11:24, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You again! You know what I think about you. In free usenet you lost all "games" >>>>>>but before you had to sign your loss officially you chickened out. >>>>> >>>>>Very funny. It was quite the opposite and you insistently changed the subject >>>>>everytime your arguments ran out of fuel. Bob no doubt remembers as he was a >>>>>participant. >>>> >>>>Dream on. My arguments running out of fuel? Please do not confuse your >>>>perception with my talents. How could you judge my qualities without a minimum >>>>of logic? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I will never >>>>>>forget that. Here we have a different situation. Here you are not allowed to >>>>>>insult (well - you might still be because you belong to the untouchables...). >>>>>>You claim you know GM. Fine for you. You mean you also understand them? Tatata. >>>>> >>>>>Understand them? The issue is how they prepare and not whether or not I >>>>>understand them. I described what I know, that is all. So did Bob for that >>>>>matter. You want to believe that all GMs only play moves they have studied in >>>>>great depth for themselves, but you are wrong, that's all. >>>> >>>>Can you reason with some logic? With understad I didn't mean that you should >>>>understand the chess. I was talking about their prep too. Look, even IF you were >>>>a GM yourself, fine, but then if you did it the way youpretended here, then you >>>>would be a real weak GM. A joke GM. >>> >>>I do not think that a GM who trust memory to play moves fast without >>>understanding them has to be a weak GM. >>> >>>I see no proof for this claim. >>> >>>It is clearly possible that part of the GM's do it when another part of the GM's >>>do not do it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Uri, >> >>please do not try to interprete what I wrote if you snip and takeoly part of it. >>Most important for the understanding is what I wrote about repertoire. Don't you >>see what that means? Then you might play "fast" but you rely on yourown >>analyses. Of course really great players never play like that. Anand is >>therefore not a great player. He's a gambler. And Kasparov well proved where >>Anand is weak. Because otherwise he were Wch. But against the very best he is >>weaker. By force he must play slower.But he can't as a gambler. >> >>All Wch I could watch are very careful at moving. >> >>And then this: I argued that those GM who might take lines in a fly and THEN who >>would also play down such a line without further thinking during the game - >>_then_ they can't be strong GM - that was my point. PLease take the long version >>if you comment. >> >>If you still doubt that then it must be due to language reasons. > >If I understand correctly by your definition anand is a weak GM. > >I think that by everybody's definition he is a super GM. >He lost against kasparov but won against a lot of GM's to have the right to play >against kasparov. > >The fact that he was not world champion could be changed in different >circumstances(if kasparov did not exist). > >Uri Anand is an example for GM who play very fast. Yes. But he is no example for a weak GM, because he was not at all in my view when I made the conclusion that if players played lines they just got on a fly by collegues AND then also did not further think but play fast down such lines. Of course, I am sure that Anand COULD be even stronger IF he would not be a gambler. And also - his gamble is a reason itself that Anand may beat many other GM. Because simply his speed is disturbing. Rolf Tueschen P.S. I would like to hear from you if you could supply exact data where a GM used a foreign line and also during game he simply played down the line without further thinking - exactly what comps do when they are in book. And THAT was Bob Hyatt's argument. I refutated such nonsense. We should not leave away the CC aspect of the debate here! The point is that in their eternal impostering comps play that way. And Bob claimed that in his view GM played in that same style. At times! I said No! So the argument has two aspects.The two belog together. Hope this helps now.
This page took 0.01 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.