Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:19:57 05/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1998 at 08:24:36, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote:
>Hi all of you,
>
>After reading and viewing carefully, I think some extremely interesting
>stuff can be found on Chessbase Express 62 from Kasparov's visit in
>England.
>
>He speaks on all kind of matters, covered not only by text (and some
>simul games played there), but also by video and audio information.
>
>I found his comments quite open-minded (more than anything I heard from
>him since a while), for example admitting frankly that it probably was a
>big mistake he made to quit FIDE at a moment when things might have been
>changed from within much better than from outside.
>
>His respect for Fisher (it seems from his view besides Tal the most
>important chess player of this century )
This comment alone made me sit back wondering. Fischer I understand, but
Tal the most important player of the century?? I guess the only way to
understand this statement, providing he was being sincere, is to examine
what is importance and what it was that Tal contributed that made him so
important.
Without discussing the obvious virtues of other great champions of the
century, and why it should be someone else, the only thing I see is
Tal's play. More specifically, his speculative play. Khalifman, a top
GM, came out recently with a trilogy of books with all of Tal's
games...commented! What was the consensus on Tal's sacrifices? Only
about 30% were correct. So what does this mean? That he swindled 70% of
his games (or those where he didn't lose)? Yes, and No. Refuting them
was no simple manner, and maybe one should look on it in a slightly
different light: he was the absolute affirmation of Lasker's "chess is a
struggle". Sure, Tal may never have thought of it this way, but consider
the size of the logs he kept rolling down his opponents' way. He, more
than any other great player, showed how clearly the difference between
what is theoretically correct and what is practically refutable is. It
also shows him, having been at the highest possible echelon, to be the
player with the greatest (I'm going to get censored for this...)
'cojones' of the 20th century. Still, I'll be honest in saying that
while my admiration for him as a player knows no bounds, I would never
place him as numero uno. Perhaps, Kasparov's comment was a disguised
sleight towards Karpov....
Albert Silver
> is still great, not only
>concerning chess matters, but also because Fisher di a lot to gain the
>public respect and better income which has become fundemental for the
>best chess players living today.
>
>He regrets Fisher was not the right person to open the chess game for a
>wide, meanwhile interested public in 1972, but retired instead.
>
>What I found especially interesting were his views back on the Deep Blue
>match. Instead of revisionism just trying to put clouds around his loss
>(as I interpreted some of his first comments after the match) he
>meanwhile seems to be able to speak fankly about some problems
>concerning psychology and strategy which this match brought to him.
>
>One of them was the kind of pressure coming from the situation that he
>very rarely in his career had to play someone completely unknown to him,
>while his opponent not only knew every game from him, but also had
>access to any available piece of analysis on his games, all this
>interpreted by the help of three strong players/grandmasters helping to
>develop the oppent's strategy.
>
>There are some more interesting arguments and insights, and after
>reading them I more then ever ask myself if the whole IBM match ever was
>more than an extremely unfair kind of show with the singular aim to
>profit in a dirty way from the best chess player of the world - without
>much interest for computer science and experiencing.
>
>First I thought, no matter what IBM did, maybe the Deep Blue team was ok
>and did a great job. I doubt this now. Especially some of Mr. Hsus from
>my view quite questionable comments on fairness in the match posted here
>by Keith Ian Price (if I remember correctly) have not done much to
>strengthen my trust in the critical awareness of the scientific members
>of the Deep Blue team: concerning what they did as willing helpers of an
>IBM advertising campaign, or in their nearly paranoid attempt to get the
>chance to beat Kasparov by any means.
>
>The whole team does not really have my respect any longer looking back
>now - and this although in contrast to others I really follow Bob Hyatts
>arguments that they did an impressive job in computerchess!
>
>Perhaps just not quite the job they want us make believe :-)
>
>So the whole thing was no really impressive hour - neither for computer
>science nor for human history - from my view looking back now after the
>the comments from both IBM and Hsu on one hand and Gary Kasparov on the
>other.
>
>All in all:
>I don't know if CB express 62 has already been announced here before,
>but I had a lot of fun in reading and viewing it.
>
>
>Kind regards from Dirk
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.