Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:45:29 03/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 13:38:25, Charles Unruh wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 12:47:43, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On March 03, 1999 at 11:07:24, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>>On March 03, 1999 at 09:59:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 03, 1999 at 04:36:43, Lin Harper wrote: >>>> >>>>>Kaspy should never have agreed to such a short match. He would surely have >>>>>caught up and passed the computer if he had time. >>>> >>>>I think Kasparov might be one of the best two or three players of all time. >>>>But in _that_ match with deep blue, I personally believe that if the match >>>>had gone two more games, it would have been two more won games for DB. Kasparov >>>>"lost it" somewhere in the first 3-4 games and never recovered. And I don't >>>>believe he would have recovered unless there had been a month break in the >>>>match which would not have happened. >>>> >>>>The last two games of the match had him looking 'beaten' before he ever made >>>>the first move. I think it would be very difficult for him to 'come back' >>>>with additional games, given the way he appeared to feel... >>> >>> >>>This really surprises me from you but anyway, It's quite a difficult thing to >>>say that kasparov would lose some games because of emotion after he went down, >>>because he would have been in a different frame of mind if he thought he had >>>more than a mere 6 games. Further when a player has the "stuff" that it takes >>>to be a world champion they have what is commonly known as the "Rocky Balboa >>>Music!", after that 6th round loss when kasp would have walked in everone in the >>>room would have been hearing that "duh duhnn, duh duh duhnn Adrian!!" >>>> >> >>The guy lost, that's evidence enough for me. >>If he is the better chess player or if he would win the next match is a >>completely different story that we will never know, I'm afraid... >>//Peter > > > Evidence enough of what? If a world championship match was anounced of only 6 >games NO ONE would think it was sufficient to prove anything, that's why there >has never in the history of all chess been a championship match that was so >short. Again as i said by your reasoning one could claim that after 9 rounds of >the kasp vs Anand match since anand was in the lead by a point that indeed that >should have proved to you that Anand was the better player. So all you are >demonstrating is an illogical bias, because not only was the match just a mere 6 >games, you have no other games of deep blues to point to to show it's strength >so you are basing an opinion of strength based solely upon 6 games total! You >can't even finsih a PROVISIONAL rating with 6 games! What if I told you that Karpov won his last world championship by winning a _blitz_ game? :)
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.