Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 18:27:47 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 18:18:03, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote:
>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.
No insult meant, but have you experience as a scientist, experimental scientist?
Yes, there is a pattern, but what does he tell you? What are the causes? You
simply conclude "superiority" of comps? That would be sub-optimal reasoning.
It's not that easy. I have different hypotheses. Just think about the complex
"show event". Is that a real competition in your eyes? Surely not.
Let's not get crazy in such discussion, but we could debate for weeks and would
still not find the final truth. It's just an evaluation on the base of
experience. Money is corrupting indeed. And show events are no serious
competition. The conclusions then are something to everyone themselves.
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.