Author: James T. Walker
Date: 08:32:05 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 10:30:47, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 10:21:02, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On January 26, 2000 at 09:06:42, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2000 at 09:02:01, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2000 at 08:26:42, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 07:45:02, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 07:17:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>About being "World champion, the rest is details", it's a classic case of >>>>>>>hypostatization, which is "to attribute real identity to a concept." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. We create a Swiss tournament of 11 rounds and name it World Championship. >>>>>>>2. Program X wins the tournament and becomes World Champion. >>>>>>>3. We are to believe that program X is the best because it is the World Champion >>>>>>>and the rest is details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If this 11 round tournament would have given another name, for instance ICCA >>>>>>>championship, steps 2 and 3 wouldn't cross anybody's mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With this I don't intend to attack Shredder 4, Junior 4.6 or Fritz 3, all fine >>>>>>>programs and none of them the best, but to question the meaning of a name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No human would become world champion after playing a total of 11 games in his >>>>>>>life, and I don't think programs should either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Enrique >>>>>> >>>>>>Would you knock off the Champions League? It's the same system and generally >>>>>>accepted. The one who wins is the strongest. >>>>> >>>>>Therefore Junior 4.6 was the strongest, and you know it wasn't. >>>>> >>>>>You can't compare chess and football, for the same reason that you can't compare >>>>>apples and oranges. But if you want to stick to your analogy, imagine a >>>>>Champions League consisting of 5 minute games. >>>>> >>>>>Imagine also that FIDE organizes a World Championship in the form of a Swiss >>>>>tournament of 11 rounds. Whould you consider the winner as World Champion? The >>>>>Las Vegas thing crowned Khalifman as World Champion. Who believes in it? >>>>>Kasparov is World Champion after winning many matches of all sort and an >>>>>extraordinary career. We all believe he is the World Champion. >>>>> >>>>>Enrique >>>>> >>>>>>Ed >>>> >>>> >>>>Sorry Enrique but I for one don't believe G. Kasparov is World Champion any more >>>>than Bobby Fischer is World Champion. I believe GK is the strongest player in >>>>the World >>> >>>This was my point. And you wouldn't believe it if he would have only won a Swiss >>>of 11 rounds. >>> >>>> but he is not World Champion in my mind. >>> >>>As a Kasparov fan, I disagree with you. But this is a different issue. >>> >>>Enrique >>> >> >>I'm sure we can agree to disagree. I notice that you chopped out my "he is not >>world champion in my mind" and disagreed with that > >Yes, I agreed with the part "I believe GK is the strongest player in the World", >and that's why the chopping out. > >> but you conviently > >No convenience or inconvenience. It just happened that I said what I had to say >about all this. > >> ignored >>the paragraph below and provided no counter argument. Is this because it is >>really the bottom line? > >In my opinion, no. That's why I said in my first post that it is a case of >hypostatization: you give a name to an event and then believe in it and in all >the consequences. Change the name and the whole panorama changes with it, in >spite of being the same event. > >Enrique > Hello Enrique, Of course you are correct in what you say but is it not true that all "Titles/Championships" are this way. Who has the right to declare anyone "World Champion?" Really no-one and everyone. The boxing world proved that you can have 3 or 4 world champions long ago. So it comes down to who do you recognize as the governing body of any sport/game as to who can bestow the title to an individual/team of World Champion. It is after all only a title. Hopefully it recoginizes the "Best". As I said that is not always the case. Nobody on the planet can argue who the best chess player in the world is right now. It's obvious. It would be great if all sports were that way. But does he have the right to bestow the title on himself just because he is the best? Frankly that kind of arrogance is what I don't like about GK. Jim Walker >>>> Fischer lost his title by >>>>refusing to compete. Why is this different for GK? The title or Championship >>>>is won in any sport/game by competing for it and luck may play a part and the >>>>best may not always win but the winner is ALWAYS CHAMPION. >>>>Jim Walker
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.