Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 19:34:23 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 21:27:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>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
I do not believe computers to be superior. I believe they are 2700+ GM strength
Tactically only. I feel alot of GMs play into their strengths for the exciting
game it produces to please the public, some i believe do not.
I do Believe Money can corrupt. I also know there is alot more to everything
that the eye and mind can see and think of.
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.