Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 08:58:26 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 20:32:22, martin fierz wrote: Hi Martin, You already say it in your first line: We will never know. All remains pure speculation. I guess if Tinsley was afraid of Chinook, this might hurt his play. In the first 6 games, the only games in which we could see something of the difference in playing strength, Chinook had an advantage. That is all. But still there were 6 draws. Lafferty won a game vs. Chinook with a Tinsley cook. Maybe Tinsley could have played this in the match, if he had played on. But this is all just a wild guess. Coming back to the Lafferty match: Chinook only lost a game because of a Tinsley cook. Would Don have won a game without this information? I don't think so. Although this is very speculative as well. I don't agree with your statement that 'if Lafferty draws a match against Chinook, Tinsley might as well'. Of course, from a pure rational point of view this is a good conclusion, but the circumstances were different. As a chess player I know what being afraid of your opponent can do to your playing strength. Chinook made 1 mistake in 10 games against Lafferty. But against Tinsley there were zero in 6 games. Not much to tell here. Maybe Chinook would have played faultless against Tinsley. Or would have made 6 mistakes. One mistake in 10 games in one match doesn't mean you will always make one mistake in 10 games in any other match. Jeroen PS I have downloaded Checkerboard, Cake and Kingsrow. Thanks for providing this service, I like Checkerboard very much! >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.