Author: Roger Brown
Date: 03:07:57 08/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2002 at 23:30:10, Russell Reagan wrote: >Then apparently you didn't watch the NBA playoffs this past season. I assure you, I did! Otherwise >you would know that it was essentially luck that put the Lakers into the finals, >because if they wouldn't have made some incredible comebacks and hit some >incredible shots in the King's series, they wouldn't have even made it to the >finals. Understand that the Lakers had quite a few things go their way in that >series, and if even one of those things went the other way, a call here, a shot >off the mark there, the Lakers are sitting at home during the finals. Russell, I agree with what you say in terms of incredible shots but isn't the ability to perform under pressure, isn't the ability to win when winning is the difference between who stays home and who goes on the hallmark of the best? Isn't Kasparov the best precisely because he has an inexhaustible capacity to play the game, to discover subtle nuances in opening and middlegame positions long thought over-studied and to exploit these with tactical blows of usually irrestible force? Kasparov has won at least three GM events in a calendar year which would be categorised as Super GM events (I suppose they average the Elo's of the participants). That man's appetite is incredible. Other GMs would feel good about winning one. Is Tiger Woods lucky? Oh yes. Is he the best? Oh yes. Who said it - the best (chess)players are always lucky? > >I am not saying the only reason the Lakers won the NBA championship is because >they were lucky. They are a highly talented team, but even so, they needed a few >things to go their way to accomplish what they did. Again, let me say that I agree with you that luck played a part in their season but is that not true for any sphere of competitive activity? Grandmasters have commented on the fact that chess is a game where the winner is the person who makes the fewest errors. Any "Immortal game nowadays suffers from harsh analysis which "proves" that the loser, had he just seen this or that move, perhaps would have done enough to raw or even win. Someone said of Alekhine's phenomenal tactical ablity (I paraphrase) that he could play the combinations like Alekhine but only Alekhine could create the conditions over the board to facilitate the appearance of the combination! Surely the best have always had the ability to create the conditions where after trailing badly they can win the game with one shot at the death? If that is luck then despite what we may think about chess, luck - isn't a blunder simply bad luck for one side and good luck for the other - abounds. I think Soltis even wrote an entire book about it (blunders). > >> I will agree that they did not have the best record - the Lakers - but to me >>that makes their winning the title an even a more commendable achievement as >>they had to square off against higher rated opponents easlier without homecourt >>advantage for the entire series. > >That means nothing. The Lakers get the benefit of the doubt whenever there is a >close call. Any NBA multiple time winner of the NBA championship will have that >advantage. I am not going here as that implicitly makes the referees part of the plot to make the Lakers win. As for close calls, I watched the entire post season and calls have a way of levelling off... > >I think the point that Dann was making is that you cannot say for sure that the >"champion" was the best team. Let's say that in the NBA, the 8th seed in the >eastern conference barely made it into the playoffs, and they went on a hot >streak for several weeks and won the NBA championship, winning every game in the >playoffs by 2-3 points, and every series going 7 games (or 5 in the first >round). In addition, Shaq and Kobe play unusually bad (by their standards), and >they lose game 7 of the NBA finals by 1 point because the other team hit a full >court 3 pointer at the buzzer. Do you think the best team won? Of course not. >The team with the most luck won. Russell, let us use a chess argument here. Are you saying that if a player rated 2000 went on a rampage in an Open, shredded the field of players all rated higher than him/her over the course of several days and several games and met a GM (say 2600) in the finals, winning by a half point, he/she wouldn't be the best player? It takes no little effort to just make it to the NBA postseason - 80 odd games. For a team to do that and then go on to win it means that for that championship series, they were the best. Don't get me wrong, I quite understand your point but now we are arguing intangibles here and I will argue in defence of my perception of best and you will argue yours. When all is said and done though, talent, flair, combinative ability, endgame superiority, opening knowledge, positional capacity - all of these elements plus LUCK (the history of the World Championship title (chess) has all sorts of bad luck and good luck stories!) must be manifested on the 64 squares and translated to victory to define the best. This is what Kasparov does. This is what Shredder (O.K., this year it's Junior!! :) )does. That aside, we are arguing intangibles and if I like combinative genius then Alekhine is the best (he is! Just teasing of course :) )regardless of his other weaknesses (which I cannot find!! Teasing again!). > >You can't take a reduced frame of reference and deduce any concrete meaning from >it. So unless Kramnik and Kasparov both absolutely crush their digital >opponents, then we will not be able to say 100% for sure that humans are still >better or computers are better now. That is the only point he was trying to >make. The Lakers happen to be the best NBA team right now, so that's why he used >them in an example. So we do agree, the Lakers are the best! ;) > >The Lakers have the two best players in the NBA, and then a bunch of spare >parts. Fortunately for them, Shaq and Kobe are capable of dominating, and when >you add in a few points from other players, it equals wins and championships. >There is no answer for Shaq, anywhere. No human being in the world can stop him, I hope the other NBA teams are reading this post and trembling ;) >and so it's no wonder that the Lakers are the best team in the world. Again we agree, the Lakers are the best! ;) >I think >you could put together a team with the best players in the world, put them >against the Lakers, and the Lakers would win (assuming no injuries). > >I'm wandering way off topic now, but hopefully you get my point. Certainly! It has been fun Russell. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Later. >Russell
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.