Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:06:44 01/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2003 at 13:19:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 29, 2003 at 12:22:55, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On January 28, 2003 at 20:12:56, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2003 at 18:39:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>As I wrote, Kasparov had to find a good way to keep it interesting after the >>>>smashing game on Sunday. Well, he found it. >>>> >>>> >>>>Qa1 throws a safe win! And nobody could tell me that Kasparov needs a computer >>>>to see that f4 is better. (GM Müller from Germany claimed that argument.) >>>>Well now we'll see the same we saw in Bahrain. >>>> >>>>Show events. >>>> >>>>:(( >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>I have another theory. >>> >>>Kasparov saw that Qa1+ is leading to at least a draw for him. >>>He probably believed that f4 is winning but was not sure about it and prefered >>>not to take risks when f4 is not a simple win even in case that kasparov has >>>nothing to worry about it(a possible line is >>>(25...f4 26.Nf1 e3 27.Ra8 Qf5 28.Rxc8 Rxc8 29.Qh3 and white fights for a draw in >>>the endgame). >>> >>>Uri >> >>I have a third theroy. >>Kasparov is a human being. Human beings makes mistakes. >>He thought that Qa1 was winning as well as he afterward thought that f4 is. >>Further analysis doesn't clearly show whether f4 is winning or not. >>/Peter > >I did not know what kasparov said at the time of the post and the theory >was another possibility to explain the mistake of kasparov(I never believed >claims that this match was fixed and the mistake was not a strange mistake that >suggest it) > >Now when I know what kasparov said, >I believe that kasparov simply did not see the draw. > >The previous post suggeted that it is impossible that kasparov did not see the >queen sacrifice(I also thought that kasparov probably saw the queen sacrifice >and this is the reason that I invented another theory). > >I did not think on the time of the post about the possibility that kasparov saw >the queen sacrifice but did not see that it leads to a draw and only later I >thought about it. > >If we consider the fact that the move that kasparov did not see was almost 20 >plies after Qa1+ then everything make sense and I agree that even without the >explanation of kasparov this was the most logical explanation to think about. > >I do not think that cases when player sell games for money are common. >I do not believe that kasparov will agree to sell games for money. But you agree that he, like Kramnik and he himself before, sold his person to advertisement of companies? Just by accepting high sum of money just for a few games? And you also agree that if he's highly paid for 5 or 8 games, that then this forces him to be nice in return? You agree or not? In the latter case, do you want to claim that the advertising companies had forced their player to play his best chess finally to crush the products because "that could impress the users and client so that they would buy the new product"? Could you explain that highly interesting new theory of psychology to the many readers here? Rolf Tueschen Rolf Tueschen > >I believe that humans did not decide not to win or to lose on purpose in all the >public matches of humans against computer except one match and kasparov is not >involved in the relevant match. > >Uri
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.