Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:31:29 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 20:32:22, martin fierz wrote: >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. This is what I also thought from the few informations I got. But let's discuss such a problem. What I can do is making conclusions of all the statements here and then I found something interesting. So I have to thank all of you. This is how the internet works! Thanks Ingo for the high-classed "troll", thanks Jeroen, Uri, Bob, Martin and others. Folks, what is a "full strength Tinsley"? To keep the debate as lively as possible I make comments straight across the former contributions. >>>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. We have inconsistencies. Bob says that Tinsley had a close relationsship to the Schaeffer team. Martin says that Tinsley could have done bettter if he had had the chance to play more games against Chinook. My question then: is it the same situation as Kasparov had it when he had to play the completely secret DB2? >> >> >>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 Of course we can make conclusions. >a) chinook was better than tinsley >b) tinsley was better than chinook >from these facts. So what means "was better"? Proven by concrete results? No, we have no such data. But still we can say that conclusion a) is false. We are in the similar position in chess, where we know for sure that even DB2 was a beginner in certain positions. So this alone disqualifies the achine to "be better" than a Wch.Both Tinsley and Kasparov habe proven that they could draw against the achines. Lafferty was even more successful in drawing. Couldn't we make conclusions with some logic here? I fear we can't do that! We had to know much more about the personality of the players. Bob gives us a ultifaceted character of Tinsley. He was honest, serious, and on the other side at least in chess a player, if not a gambler, who tried to make it with his perhaps 2100 against the CRAY of Bob. In nightlong events. I have some ideas for the reasons why Lafferty, whose personality is even completely unknown to me, succeeded apparently even better against Chinook than Tinsley. It is a completey different task to be the best (even worse if the best by far!) in human checkers and to play such a machine. Because you don't have too much experiences with equally strong resistance. You simply don't know how to fight in such situations. Typically Tinsley said - after very few games only - that Chinook were the better player. But how then could Lafferty hold the score open over so many games, over sixty in sum? Isn't it more the depression that took hold of Tinsley when he "felt" the strong resistance on the machine's side. What he never before had felt in his very long career? So, let's ask the question in a different version. If the match would have lasted over dozens of games, would Tinsley by and by have learned how to play with the conscience of an almost equal opponent? We don't know. From the facts Bob reported I have serious doubts. Ok, he had strong stamina, at least in chess, when he tried and tried all night long. But we must not forget that there is always a difference between passtime fun, even in addition with some masochistic appearances. But it is something totally different to be frustrated in you major field where you were the champ for decades, yes, almost a century! Those who knew him should rethink all this. Perhaps they can tell us what could be probable in this case. For now we must see that Tinsley surely have had the strength to win such a long match, but perhaps Lafferty was only so successful because for him it was not such a frustration to only draw in dozens of games. Checkers is too unknown for me as that I could say how far such series of draws matters anyhow. I must also add as always that the aspect that Chinook was a machine forcedly also influenced Tinsley. Had he enough informations and experience with computers? Martin seems to disagree as far as games are concerned. >but i think it's clear that if lafferty could draw a match >against chinook, then "by b)" tinsley might have managed that too. That is the big question. With logic alone this can't be said. Did Tinsley ever meet a player equally strong? >and if >chinook made a serious mistake once in ten games, who knows - it might have lost >a match to tinsley. To a Tinsley who must have digested the many draws like Lafferty. > or it might have won. No. This could not happen because of its strength but only because of Tinsley's depression. > you cannot tell. but there is no >evidence that tinsley was really outclassed by chinook. This is clear. But being outclassed brings the same results as being "frustrated" e.g. > 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. Thanks for giving the point! > 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? Surely! But if that could have changed hispersonality's reactions? We simply don't know. It depends on the past experiences. Does anyone know if Tinsley really had stamina? Know what I mean? Please read about the young player Karpov when he was still under ten! Unbelievable!! Who ccan still remember the Wch match between Karpov and Kasparov with the long series of draws!? (Therefore don't miss today the *FREE* LIVE reports from Moscow on the FIDE site! LIVE games of all the Wch's. Karpov, Kasparov,Kramnik, Ponomariov, Anand, Khalifman etc.) Rolf Tueschen > >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.