Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:30:09 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 02:59:09, Jarkko Pesonen wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 21:26:12, allan johnson wrote: > >>On January 30, 2003 at 20:50:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 2003 at 20:28:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 30, 2003 at 19:57:34, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 30, 2003 at 19:48:10, Rodney Topor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 30, 2003 at 19:43:51, Arshad Syed wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>After Game 1, I was very dissapointed about Junior. I didn't really think Junior >>>>>>>would come back to win. Fantastic performance by DF. Hope to see one more such >>>>>>>win, only without a Kasparov error. So far, all the games lost by DF and DJ have >>>>>>>been mainly due to blunders on Kramnik's or Kasparov's part. Looking forward to >>>>>>>see DJ break this trend. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you meain to claim that all the games _won_ by DF and DJ have been mainly due >>>>>>to blunders by Kramnik or Kasparov? Do others agree? >>>>>> >>>>>>Rodney >>>>> >>>>>I think that is most often the case. i.e. a clear proven blunder. But there >>>>>might be better players against computers than Kasparov or Kramnik. >>>>> It might well be that their extra few hundred ELO points don't make all that >>>>>much difference against computers, compared to another person who is very >>>>>special in anti-computer playing. Isn't Mr. Nemeth only about 2100 ELO, and >>>>>maybe equal to Kasparov or Kramnik against computers? >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>I do not believe that Nemeth can score even 1.5/6 against Junior in the >>>>condition that kasparov is playing. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Nobody here seems to like logic. >> >>> Rolf Has anyone seen Eduard play the games he claims to have won?How do we know they weren't contrived? I think the fact that computers don't suffer nerves and are able to calculate extremely well make them difficult opponents. >> Al >>>Uri,how could youknow? How can you say conditions?Why should Eduard be in >>>Kasparovs conditions?? >>> >>>And to the others above: You conclude that others are better than the actually >>>best players.This is nonsense. These two are not the best for psychological >>>reasons but for their deep insights. The point is this. They simply are not used >>>to play compsand it also makes no sense for them. Money in such shows alone >>>can't make them students again. Since both however are fantastic calculators too >>>I make the only possible conclusion. They simply help theprogs to look good. >>>Period. >>> >>>If you ask but why? then I say because they got million $$ for nothing. This is >>>corrupting. >>> >>>Eduard would not be much better in front of a big crowd because he's used to. >>> >>> >I have heard that Kasparov is NOT in front of a big crowd instead he is in a >room with few people so he is not disturbed. You are right and Kramnik in Bahrain played in front of a still smaller crowd but that is not what I was talking about. It is very simple. Humans do NOT only react on what they _see_ but also on what they know that it's there. This is so simple that we all in general underestimate it. Stress and tension do not only result out of real problems but also out of problems we think that they are threatening or disturbing, in fact then they become as real as the "other" real problems. And it's evident that if you are not used to such situations you will be disturbed. Already in 1997 I saw that Kasparov was unable to bear the tension that he himself had sought and created. You know, he was actor as a player, then he was his own speaker on press conferences and also he was actor to the crowd or when he walked down the street to his favorite bar. In a real fight against another human player he would never do that. He would - like all great sport champions - concentrate on his job as a player and nothing else. Let me make a hypothesis. If Eduard would play such a match in his OWN rooms with only a single operater present he would _still_ be in different conditions (which normally should disturb him). The conscience alone that now has come his day and that he can prove it to the world should normally be sufficient to let him look like lemon. That is the reason why people are deadly wrong who try to reduce chess on the objectively visible moves or lines. Human chess is different. Chess against a machine is again different. Chess against a computer is more like performing in MOST extreme conditions, where normally humans never were before. It is in short the expedition to one's inner self. And in that respect both, Kramnik for all but also Kasparov are still like kids. They "played" a bit but they still don't fight in that zone of the ultimate challenge. Because other than what they had learned so perfectly well in human chess over the years since their childhood, they had at first to know themselves absolutely and exactly. But why should they do that? Computers are still too weak to be a real challenge for such players. But like the computer side itself, who keep their secrets as if it were a military project, the best players won't tell you/ us what they really felt and saw during their games. I have strong indications that they can't stop laughing when they are out of reach of the crowd and reporters. Millions of dollars for such a hoax they will probably say. Next day they will speak a different language of course because that is part of the game... or better the deal. Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen
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.