Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 15:18:03 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 11:59:02, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On February 02, 2003 at 10:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On February 02, 2003 at 08:48:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On February 02, 2003 at 01:11:31, Robert Hyatt 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? That supports the fact that f4 would not have won. Otherwise he would have
>>>>said "had I played f4, I would have won that game easily." If that was his
>>>>agenda...
>>>
>>>
>>>Objection! If he had said that, he would have talked too much about the show
>>>character of the event! And that is not his agenda for 500000$$ US just for the
>>>show and even more for the games.
>>>
>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>
>>
>>I see no real point to discussing "assumed motives" that can't be proven or
>>disproven...
>
>You better should see that the point is real. In fact "motives" is the term,
>"assumed motives" is redundant! You certainly don't want to doubt that
>psychology is a real science? ;)
>
>Of course you can prove motives or disprove them. I think that the motivation in
>show events and World championships is different! All IMO of course.
>
>
>Rolf Tueschen
Isn't there a pattern here? players from strong IM to very strong GM losing?
I could see if the comps were scoring 40or50% in the IM to lower GM ranks and
then to see Super GM playing like this I would question more, but I do not feel
all the other GMs were "inspired" to do this. It is possible Kasparov is, But I
do not think he is playing a computer that is 300 points below him.
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.