Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:58:06 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 22:29:21, Günther Simon wrote: >On October 08, 2002 at 21:39:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 08, 2002 at 18:11:35, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>>>Unfair comparison >>>>>Kramnik got the program before the match and kasparov did not. >>>>> >>>>>It is natural to suspect that kramnik planned the positional mistakes of Fritz >>>>>beofore the games by trying many openings to find openings that Fritz plays bad >>>>>positional moves. >>>> >>>>didn't you notice that kramnik is playing his usual openings? he doesnt look >>>>like he has "tried many openings". he plays his normal systems and beats fritz >>>>with them. >>>>he would have done the same if he had practised with fritz 6 or with any other >>>>strong computer program! >>>> >>>>aloha >>>> martin >>> >>> >>>How do you know? Isnt it natural to test ones usual openings first and >>>the DF reactions towards them? Therefore I dont see any contradiction >>>to Uris statement - I am pretty sure that he did very well _know_ that >>>DF will i.e. play this Bf8 move in the 2nd game. (BTW if you have F7 >>>at home you can see that this one also wants to play Bf8 in the same >>>position...) >>>Once again, why should he have planned with unfamiliar openings when >>>he had one full year time to test his usual ones for DF inferior answers? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Günther >> >>Günther, >> >>I'm a bit astonished that you seem to take the usual journalism as a correct >>mirror of real life. I mean did you see or hear the evidence fromKramnik himself >>or are you combiningyourself what could have happened? Do you really believe >>that Kramnik should have played and worked hard with Fritz vor over 15 months >>now?? I don't thinks so. Of course Fritz is a training tool also for GM but I >>think that Kramnik must not work for months to discover what is weak in such a >>program. But of course you won't tell the press. Simply because that would cause >>problems to the sponsors! >> >>I think that those are correct who say that he had never Bf8 on his display. Or >>would you think that he had thought for 14 minutes? >> >>I think further that you identification with the ChessBase team goes a bit too >>far if you now insinuate that Kramnik should lie about the truth. Because he had >>already stated that he didn't know the move as someone said. >> >>Why starting such conspiracies? >> >>Let's enjoy the rest of the games! >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > >I find it strange too, seeing me put into the CB corner when I suppose >the easiest way of proceeding for Kramnik or where did I wrote that it >was 'hard work' for Kramnik to find holes in DF openings? I can't explain in a few sentences why I didn't put you "into the CB corner". Because you might misread me again. I was talking about identification and that is meant as a term to explain the neighbourhood of your thoughts with probably the CB side, the team if you want. You see? I didn't want to put you into a "corner" to mark you somehow. It was just a phrasing in the argument. But on the contrary your reaction proved something else. That you are very concerned about such "being put". But maybe that is important in certain German forums but at least not here. Where from I had my idea for that term? Oh, I can read the many postings here in CCC and can well discover those who come from ChessBase defenders. No matter how strange their pseudonymes might sound. :) And now please listen. You have written and you cannot deny that: "I am pretty sure that he did very well _know_ that DF will i.e. play this Bf8 move in the 2nd game." And that goes simply pretty too far, you know! Now either you are an insider and want to accuse Kramnik of lying or you are, what you are now pretending, just another amateur user of "WB" without any connections with CB at all. But what then motivated you to write such conspiracy nonsense? Yes I know - your logic goes like that: You saw the Bf8 and then you played it with your own machine at home and whoopie you had Bf8 on the display. And then you concluded that Kramnik must have seen the same at home! Well done! This is good logic! NOT! This is nonsense and you can't make such conclusions. And I thought that you were educated enough to understand it by yourself. But apparently you want to go into the other direction now. You want to prove against all odds, that if you had it at home then Kramnik or his aids must have had it at home too! Well that is simply naive or call it what you want. Here in CCC in this international group you can't bring forward the same nonsense that could help in CSS. Here logic has still a certain value! In CSS logic is decided by company interests. Here in CCC the argument counts. And your argument had the disadvantage that you stand agains Malcolm Pein, a respected chess expert. Who could talk to Vladimir Kramnik. Know what I mean? Is it clear by now why I tried to write you my arguments in the first place? Yes, because you insulted a very honorable man. Know what I mean? And you also insulted Kramnik himself. Not nice. >I am also pretty sure Now that phrase should get a renovation somehow. It's an empty phrase. >that the opening book Kramnik had been given >was 99,9% the same that is used now for this match. Outch. Now I understand where your misunderstandings do come from! Didn't you know that the moves are not so important but more so the flags??? So, if the book was the same, then how about the preferences? How could Kramnik know these? Can't you understand the nonsense you took as a base for your thoughts? You want to tell me that Bf8 could be discovered in a fortnight? Not exact enough, better in a fortnight where the team of Kramnik had to do sort of things but not searching for Bf8 stuff! But now I've seen that I must apologize. I couldn't know the real extension of your ignorance. And therefore I apologize that I thought that you could have insulted Kramnik or Pein. >Moreover despite some messages here I did not see Kramniks comments >denying the knowledge about Bf8 in his own words just statements of >other people who said that they were told what Kramnik might have said... >Further I dont see any relation to something you call 'conspiracy'? >Isnt it just naively to assume Kramnik did _not_ spend a _bit_ of time >to prepare for this match as he was the first one who had the biggest >chance for preparation to such a match ever in Computerchess history? >IMHO even a 1900+ player might have some chances for at least a whole >point in this match being familiar with DF style and the biggest part >of its opening book.(To clarify: I have absolutely no relations to CB >which is a known fact in the WB world ;) Geschenkt. But I have a still worse discovery here. You wrote: "IMHO even a 1900+ player might have some chances for at least a whole point in this match being familiar with DF style and the biggest part of its opening book." Dream on, Günther! You are badly wrong here. Totally wrong. Even if you were able to hold the complete data in your memory you would not be able to master the technique problems later. You are talking like the pupil who's learning his first language and who thinks that now he could understand the conservation in that particular land. Or the student who heard or read something and then thought that he had understood it and now could explain it to other students. If you ever tried it you would have seen that such processes are not similar. Passive knowledge is different to practical abilities. I hope I could give you some important information. Rolf Tueschen > >Günther Simon
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.