Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:25:34 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 06:25:38, allan johnson wrote: >On February 17, 2003 at 03:15:15, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On February 17, 2003 at 00:54:29, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 22:47:18, John Jack wrote: >>> >>>>How much greater would Bobby have been if he had access to the powerfull >>>>computers and software That we have Today (2950ELO)??. I have a issue of chess >>>>life early 70s they list his rating at 2810 (Front Cover)That was over 30 years >>>>ago. When There Was no computer for chess. (Just Books) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John E Jack >>> >>> >>>Just remember, perhaps the greatest genius in chess yes, but his mental >>>unstabilities limited his duration at the top. At the same time, they might >>>have contributed to his greatness. As a young boy in his teens, some thought >>>that perhaps Fischer should be given some psychogical counseling - due to his >>>noticeable eccentrics even at that age. It was decided against it, for fear >>>that it might diminish his chess genius. In hindsight, perhaps it should have >>>been provided. We will never know what perhaps could have been >>> >>> >>>Kasparov also exhibits some of these same paranoid tendencies - but to a far >>>lessor extent. One example is his belief that Deep Blue cheated with human >>>intervention. >>> >>>Just goes to show you that there is fine line between genius and the unstable - >>>Fischer is firmly planted in the unstable camp, Garry is in the genius camp >>>...although not as firmly as he once was held out to be. >>> >>>Michael >> >>Those with more genius take more liberties and risks with what they say (and >>do), confident in their great mental stability with which they can either back >>up or disengage themselves, from wrong situations. >>Fisher does not seem to have been in that category, but Kasparov is normal. >>Geniuses also may tend to learn some things slower than other people do, as they >>are prepared to make more mistakes and experiment much more, on their own >>responsibility, before coming to the right conclusions about some things. > > All "right" conclusions are purely subjective.There can be no one correct >answer for anything. "Right" conclusions would mean those that bring about most production together with harmony, all-round. At any rate, I don't subscribe to an ideology of "there no real difference between right and wrong, t'is only thinking that makes it so". S.Taylor >> >>Is this healthy? > >> If it makes you happy then I believe it to be so. > Al >>Not always, and not in every way. But it can be used in a healthy way, without >>wasting of time and talents, but it needs a very special and understanding >>upbringing. >>S.Taylor
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.