Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:14:07 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 15:46:46, Poschmann wrote: >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. That's right! Note, the difference between PR and what you call my crusade is that I give arguments. So simple. You must not read them either. You might feel obliged to think about it and then you find new arguments. That's all what it's all about. Normally such verdicts without further arguments are used by people who themselves have a secret agenda. Whereas I have no agenda. I have no party membership to whatever direction or business. I bring forward arguments. While you sound as if you want to express your anger about my questioning of ChessBase. Tosay crusade without arguments is insulting. > >Fact is that the position before Qc4 is already a losing position. Really? That is interesting. I don't believe it. >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. Wrong! But I agree that Kramnik would have had a hard time in the defense. > >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. Why should he? I mean, you must not applaud my idea of the protest with chess moves, but you can't call for more sophisticated moves, when that move here was already not understood by the ChessBase team! Just take a look into the English department of their webpage. And that after the first four games which proved the inferiority of Fritz, if you don't mind. But my point was that now the opponent Fritz is not even the best thinkable, and we know by now that Fritz has not qualified in a fair way. But that was exactly what Kramnik had believed all the time... Rolf Tueschen > >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.