Author: Poschmann
Date: 12:46:46 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 08:01:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >[Since I write from abroad I must use the AOL account, so please do not >speculate! Thanks.] > >I've read quite a few statements about the 5th game, whether it should have been >"fixed" or not and even Bob took part with the sophisticated differentiation >that blunder or not, we had to realise the point that an opponent had do >"notice" presence of the blunder after all... > >That is all completely uninteresting! > >Perhaps it could help the debate about fixed or not-fixed if I give here a quote >from Kramnik himself and then the "experts" here have new food to think. > >1. (Quotes by heart) "I checked the coming endgame after the loss of the pawn b7 >and saw no solution for me, then I thought I could simply exchange the Knights, >but immediately I saw that I would then lose a piece!" > >2. "So then I went back to the endgame, but couldn't look through to a safe >draw. Then I came back to the exchange idea and made the move (Qc4)." > >Here not the exact wording is important but only the process of decision finding >in 4 steps. Kramnik said it this way on the press conference. > > >From these rather strange explanations I wrote some kind of brutal, because >reveiling, analysis about the situation Kramnik is in after the report of Eric >Schiller, who proved Kramnik wrong with his statement that Fritz had been >qualified in a "tournament" before etc. Now it must be clear for Kramnik that >he's just the tool for a PR action for ChessBase. I compared his "blunder" with >the 6th game in 1997 when Kasparov should have confused the move h6 in the >opening. Insiders knew then and know by now that GM like Kasparov and Kramnik >the two best GM actually, would never make such mistakes. So such "blunders" are >more a way to express revulsion and contempt. Bobby Fischer always prefered to >leave or at least to not to play. But the modern way is just more sophisticated. >Because it's telling the smart insiders... > >In my 11th mosaic I wrote about "Realitätsverlust" (loss of reality) and in >Smarttalk I explained the alleged "blunder by Kramnik". There is the correct >German wording from the press conference. Both articles in German unfortunately. >If I have the time I will add a little translation later on. > >http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/11.html >http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/SmallTalk.html > >Rolf Tueschen In some points you may have right. But some of your statements sound like you are on a crusade against something or somebody. If a company advertises its products, it is your choice to follow them or not. Fact is that the position before Qc4 is already a losing position. As Kramnik mentioned in his interview, he cannot avoid the loss of the b-pawn. And after that every possible exchange (queen or knight or both) leads to well known lost endgames. Nobody knows that better than Kramnik himself. I agree with you that such a big mistake is nearly unbelievable. But I think, if Kramnik wanted to lose the game, he found a more sophisticated way. Ralf Poschmann Ralf Poschmann
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.