Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:39:08 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 16:44:09, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Weeeell Rolf, what I should think of your post. What I should say... Probably I >will be consider by you an idiot from now on, but I prefer to be honest, as you, >and say my thinking no matter what. >I insist in this: K is just another human being, and then... >a)Human beings goes easily from masterly handling of something to poor handling >of the same something. Just like that. GM even lose pieces from time to time. >b) you and me, as chess player, we are a full class above, say, CM2000. >Nevertheles, It happens to me that I have lost games to CM2000 for whatever >reason: that day I was not happy, lost concentration, I believed I was far >superior, I just commited too many mistakes, etc. And nevertheless I am far >superior to CM2000. >c) who knows what impressed K? Perhaps what he thought F was thinking or could >think. Chess has that mirroring quality. You play, in fact, againts yourself. >You see enemy movements, but are your movements. Etc >d)He got bored. Gm gets bored. A row of wins and you lose interest. It happens >all days. It is part of human AND GM experience. I Have seen that thousand of >times. >e)BTW, I am money-independent, if not a thinker. >f) So, what I say is this: If K lost big chunk of power for any reason, that >losing of power is part of his Gm identity, no matter what. >g) Let me say a truism: ANY score in ANY endeavour in this life is, for ANY >person, an average between good and bad days. That is the real entity of all of >us. For K. is so, also. > >OK, so you now think I am a moneyed idiot....Sometimes -many times- I agree >Besides nothing can be said about me worst that what I say about me. >My very best to a friend no matter what. >Fernando Thanks for holding open your thoughts about me. Because I didn't mean the worst possible to interprete in my last posting. So for that I can only thank you. And what your honest thinking concerns a second thank you. Now for the details. I would never say that a moneyed man is an idiot. On the contrary he must be smart. But your extreme notion allows me to talk about the main topic under a new and fitting perspective. I think that you make the similar mistake also Bob makes and many others too. That is you think that you could well extend your own chess experiences up to super GM level and in prinipal nothing could change. You (of course me included) make mistakes and blunders and 'they' too. We suffer from pressures from our opponents, they do it the same way. For me that is not a correct view. Forme it's something different if I run with my head against a door of glass or if a F1 driver smashes his car into the wall of tyres. Physically and psychologically different. Here we have a comparably simple case. All what we have to do is proving that Deep Fritz is someone who could exert pressureon Kramnik in a show for min 800000 - 1 million dollars. A s you know the money in case of losing was still (!) at 600000 dollars. Now where is the problem for a thinker like you. Exactly with your experiences also as a "moneyed" something? 1) Kramnik knew before that Deep Fritz is a joke compared to his own strength. Period. 2) So he started with a little chess. And whoopie he went ahead with 3-1. 3) Now let's enter Kramnik's brain after the first half. Should he go for the 1 million dollar result? Or would it be almost the same if he took the 800000 or even the 600000? Well, the 800000, that is ok, but I dont want tolose that damn thing. Period. Any objections fom your side so far? 4) As I wrote at the beginning of the match Kramnik had the task to find ways to let Fritz look better than it really was. So one blunderout of the blue. Qc4. Fernando, this is not the crime. Of course Kramnik could blunder like you or me but 1. he never did such nonsense 2. his explanation in press confderence did prove that he faked blundering. What he said is simply impossible. He said that he had forgotten that the move lost a piece, but moments ago he had seen it... You know that is simply impossible. Because if that were true he couldn't play chess no longer. If I had his illness I couldn't write coherent postings. :) 5) You shouldn't try to think psychologically. <g> He couldn't get bored as you say. He's Russian and suddenly he has 1 million dollars at stake, man! The only thing that he was interested in was the question how I could act in a friendly mode to get another chance in future and more money. Yes,when he had clarified that question he got bored. Of courseso, because from the chess Fritz played, Kramnik had to suffer deep starvation from a perspective of an artist. That's true. On the other side he's too young to get the whole idiocy of the play he was in - a la Ionescu or Beckett. I think the suit of Mathias Feist is the symbol of the betrayal in the whole event! That is when pallbearers wear white gloves, you know. It's so unreal. 6) I think I could see that Kramnik felt uncomfortable making moves in such a hoax. Thanks for inspirements. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.