Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:21:55 05/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2003 at 16:43:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 14, 2003 at 12:15:45, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 14, 2003 at 04:10:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>As you know I keep you informed about elaborations from GM Huebner too. Actually >>>at http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=2088 he created a fantastic >>>myth about Kasparov's "Angst" (fear resp. anxiety) in front of a machine. >>>Huebner comments on certain incredible and weak moves in the match Kasparov vs >>>Deep junior. >>> >>>This time I can close the chapter much more rapidly than when Huebner commented >>>on his own draw in Dortmund against Fritz two years ago. >>> >>>Huebner is a funny guy. Although he's playing in almost all Leagues in Europe >>>(Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc.) to make some money and although Kasparov >>>got almost a million dollars in advance for his showing up in NY, Huebner >>>forgets to mention the aspect of MONEY. FUNNEY! >>> >>>He quotes William Tell the Swiss Hero instead. Making the readers believe that >>>modern chessplayers are heroes who play chess for the honour NOT for the MONEY. >>> >>>However - the article is still valuable. Because the positions Huebner explains >>>are proof for Kasparov's intentionally weak play. Period. >>> >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>I do not see how you can prove that a player played intentionally weak. >> >>I believe that it is the case for kramnik because he did more than one mistake >>that I expect even myself not to do but about kasparov I saw no convincing >>evidence for it. >> >>I prefer to assume that someone is innocent without a strong evidence and the >>fact that GM's play for money does not mean that they will agree to play >>intetionally weak for money. >> >>I know that you do not believe that conmputers are GM strength but it is known >>that some programs already did GM's performance in men against machines even in >>1997 and the games were close to tournament time control(something like 105+15 >>time control based on my memory). >> >>It is known that computers got significantly better after 1997 thanks to >>software and hardware so it does not make sense to assume that they did not >>improve significantly. > > >You must talk to Huebner, not me. Get yourself the positions Huebner gave. And >then tell us what you think. It's not about me. I'm just the reporter. > >Rolf I cannot respond without understanding exactly what he said. The fact that he showed mistakes of kasparov does not mean that the mistakes were done intentionally. I understand that the first diagram was about kasparov's decision not to play b5. It is possible that kasparov did not evaluate correctly the knight sacrifice and was afraid to play b5. It does not prove intentionally weak play by kasparov. I also understand that the second diagram is about game 5 but I do not understand what is the conclusion of Huebner. Does he say that g3 was better? It is not clear and even if we assume that g3 was better(I do not think that it was better) then it does not mean that kasparov did weak move on purpose. I also guess that the third diagram is about the last game and again there is no big mistake to convince me that kasparov played intentionally weak. Uri
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.