Author: Paul Massie
Date: 12:36:13 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
One of Kasparov's greatest strengths is his ability to study opponents and prepare things especially for them. He is actually more versatile than most of his opponents, so he is better able to prepare surprises for them. Also, he tends to have more research ability (either personally or through his backup team), so again he is very successful at preparing for opponents. Since he wasn't able to see any DB games prior to the match, he wasn't able to utilize that strength. He obviously thought when going into the match that he could still win without that advantage, but after he lost he was bitterly regretting not having insisted on a way to prepare specifically for DB. Interestingly enough, it seems quite debatable as to whether that should be considered a reasonable condition for him, or whether it actually constitutes an unfair advantage to him to be able to prepare at that length. It is clear that, given a number of games to study, he would have been able to do much better against DB - providing DB didn't change it's playing style. But why should it be fair for DB to be forced to remain constant, while Gary is able to adapt to its style? Paul
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.