Author: martin fierz
Date: 17:32:22 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 11:53:42, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On September 09, 2002 at 06:08:08, Côme wrote: > > >>I don't really agree here, Remember tinsley retired from the match after 6 draws >>because he was litteraly dying from cancer ! so chinook draw a dying man :-) > > >I disagree. You cannot blame Chinook here, Tinsley was still the >very best in the world and in the six games Chinook was putting >the pressure. > > >>Then he was replaced by Don lafferty and Chinook drew the match ! >>Remember Lafferty despite being the second best player in the world he was >>really a LOT weaker than tinsley ! I think tinsley rating was +2800 and Lafferty >>like 2650 ! > > >You still remember how Lafferty did accomplish this? By playing for >a draw in every game! It is like playing soccer using 6 goalkeepers :-). >Anyway, it is not fair to state that Don was a lot weaker than Marion, >you wouldn't say that Anand is A LOT weaker than Kasparov, won't you? >Number two in the world is number two. > > >>So I do believe a full strenght Tinsley would have kicked chinook badly. >>Laffert played hundreds of games with tinsley and he said he only beat him ONCE >>and it was very late at night and tinsley was tired :-) > > >You can believe this, but we will never know. All we can see are >the 6 games played and in those games Chinook was never in trouble >and once came close to winning. > > >Jeroen we will never know is the right answer, but we can see two more things besides the 6 games between tinsley and chinook: 1) immediately after the match against tinsley, chinook played 20 games against lafferty and the match ended +1=18-1. chinook made two serious mistakes in this match, losing a drawn position, and failing to win a winning position. 2)tinsley was a stronger player than lafferty. these are both facts. obviously (unfortunately), you cannot make any kind of conclusion like a) chinook was better than tinsley b) tinsley was better than chinook from these facts. but i think it's clear that if lafferty could draw a match against chinook, then "by b)" tinsley might have managed that too. and if chinook made a serious mistake once in ten games, who knows - it might have lost a match to tinsley. or it might have won. you cannot tell. but there is no evidence that tinsley was really outclassed by chinook. all we have to go on is that according to bob, before the match, tinsley was really afraid of chinook. but i think in part this is because he had no chance to play against it or to study it's games. for example, what would he have said after he saw chinook's loss to lafferty, which was all book play? would he have changed his mind? aloha martin
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.