Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:12:51 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 09:58:48, Frank Phillips wrote:
>On February 02, 2003 at 09:43:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On February 02, 2003 at 09:25:06, Frank Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>You are right and wrong at the same time. Most of what you say is true but here
>>in such a show event it's not true. It seems as if people do not totally
>>understand what show event "implies". This is not a cheating attitude or
>>motivation in Kasparov! No! The whole situation is schizophrenic and all those
>>who were in such a situation know that. Another example. The fact alone that you
>>should perform - what you did so well at home - in the presence of public makes
>>the whole thing different.
>>
>>Perhaps a good example for lay. In school you learned a new language, I'm
>>talking about Europe of course. Now you are a good student. And then you travel
>>to Paris or London. And suddenly you note that you have no understanding AT ALL!
>>Simply because it's a difference between the theory at home and the practice.
>>Ok, that was for my time, today we have all sorts of audio-vision help so that
>>the difference might be smaller.
>>
>>Here something for advanced students:
>>
>>You tried to learn something. You read books. Now what do you believe? Could you
>>explain the topic to someone else?
>>
>>You always have this difference in the perspectives. Of course very smart people
>>can also imagine all that in advance. But normal mortals are always surprised
>>and we here have the same difficulty with the Kasparov performance in the show
>>event. And we forget about the money as if we wantead to appear superior and
>>clever. But that is the basic factor of a show event. That the one who is in the
>>commercial clip is part of the deal - for a high recompensation of course!
>>
>>Is this so difficult to understand?
>>
>>I'm not talking about a different event. But you missed the main point of it.
>>
>>Rolf Tueschen
>
>
>Rolf
>
>I will stop after this, because I clearly out my depth.
>
>GK has impressed me because of his desire to win and dominate at chess for so
>very long. His drive, determination and ego (not meant to be disparaging) must
>be enourmous. While the money is important, I believe GK really wants to win
>and more importantly not lose, if only to try to wash away the stain of Deep
>Blue in his own mind.
>
>I agree with your comments about theory and practice. But this is a match and
>about performance. (Your language example is probably more apposite to Deep
>Blue last time, where his theory was clearly badly flawed.).
>
>Frank
Yes, let's stop it here, you simply do not want to realise that this is NOT a
'match'. It's a show. It's a commercial. Of course all what you write is also
true. But NOT this here: that Kasparov himself tried to wash the memories of DB2
away. How could he do that? He himself said that 6 games is NOT enough! And he
still agreed now. If that is not for money reasons!
All this makes the whole event a bit slippery or muddy. But that was true for
all these shows in the past, Barreev, Huebner, Smirin, Gulko, Kramnik and now
Kasparov. You should know what real chess experts have to say, not weak players
like we two! I can't give his name but a GM informed me in 1997 that the opening
in the second game alone (by Kasparov for Black) proved that he was NOT seeking
the winning point but that he gave DB2 the advantage right from the beginning.
The whole opening is simply not playable in this form, you know what I mean!
Well, but you would never read such stuff in journals. Because all GM hope that
they once play in that same show event - for all the money, of course.
Nice having talked with you, all the best,
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.