Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 06:25:06 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 08:46:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On February 02, 2003 at 06:12:01, Frank Phillips wrote:
>
>>On February 01, 2003 at 23:41:56, Will Singleton wrote:
>>
>>>On February 01, 2003 at 22:03:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 15:33:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 12:31:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 01:58:53, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On January 31, 2003 at 22:58:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't believe I ever said "he was lucky in game 2". He made an incredibly
>>>>>>>>deep sacrifice offer that I'd bet he was sure the computer would take, and it
>>>>>>>>led to a position that gave black lots of chances. But white made no mistakes
>>>>>>>>and the chances were all "vaporous" and the draw ensued.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only because _black_ made the mistake, turning a winning position into a drawn
>>>>>>>one, with Qa1 instead of f4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing to date says "f4 was winning." Kasparov certainly said that his team
>>>>>>found that f4 was yet another way to draw...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you post a link when kasparov said it.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only place that I remember that I read that claim was in a post of Amir Ban
>>>>>and kasparov did not say it based on the post but only a member of kasparov's
>>>>>team.
>>>>
>>>>He said kasparov reported that his "team" and discovered that f4 was also a
>>>>drawing move. I have no reason to doubt his statement, myself... He was
>>>>there...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is a link for that post and the content of the relevant part
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?280166
>>>>>
>>>>>{After the game Kasparov blamed this move, and said f4 wins. He repeated this at
>>>>>the press conference minutes later. However, half an hour later a member of his
>>>>>team told Shay that they analyzed f4 and found it is a draw (25... f4 26.h3)}
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>OK... that seems conclusive enough for me...
>>>
>>>Mig quote:
>>>"Kasparov wanted this on the record and repeated several times that he had
>>>outplayed Junior completely in all three games and could be leading 2.5-0.5 or
>>>even 3-0 if he had managed to finish off his good positions."
>>>
>>>http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt.htm
>>>
>>>Will
>>
>>
>>Sadly, no points for almost winning.
>>
>>When I used to play chess (at a feeble level), I cannot remember many wins where
>>I would not have lost had my opponent only played different moves. Something
>>they were always ready to point out. They were probably correct too.
>>
>>It is also not clear that, while dominating, GK was in fact winning.
>>
>>I am hoping to see at least one game where GK is under pressure, to see how he
>>responds. The implication of his comment seems to be that if he cannot win won
>>positions then.........
>
>It's funny to read that sort of superiorism viewed from the weaker levels
>perspective. Could you try to understand that if on your (probably my own) level
>something could be better played, it is NOT the same as if Kasparov could have
>better played? You are talking about single moves and then you see fog at best
>but Kasparov sees a little bit better into the future events of a game. Key:
>depth.
>
>Kasparov is in a double bind. He reasons as if he were a split person. Because
>it makes no sense. I mean he plays a machine 300 points weaker than himself and
>he simply refuses to continue to fight! So the answer to your "then..." is this:
>
>...it's a show event!!! But let's not talk about it, folks. That is what
>Kasparov's message is like.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Rolf Tueschen
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Frank
Rolf
I am not sure that I understand the point(s) you are making.
I was making two points:
1) This is a match - a competition. You win or lose according to the moves you
and your opponent play in the alloted time within the rules of the game -
already modified slightly to favour the human
2) Humans, particular at his level, have a hard time believing they played
inferior chess to someone or something else, or worse still are inferior at
chess than something or someone else.
You assert apriori that GK is 300 points better. Maybe...I would certainly have
thought so, but so far he has not proved it, although may well do. Remember ELO
is based on relative performance, not hypothesised results - or want might or
could have been.
Nothing was meant to sound superior. Junior played great. Like other GMs, GK
probably believed it was toasted, but was wrong. He simply was not good enough
on the day to beat it.... or in game 2. I guess it is in the human condition to
believe that you should and could have won because despite the result you are
really better. His _performance_ has not demonstrated this yet, which is a big
surprise to me.
Unless I have misunderstood you, your interpreation of events seems to be based
on believing that GK is better, but losing for some other motive....I prefer not
to believe this.
Frank
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.