Author: Timmay
Date: 18:15:58 11/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
Folks, you need to stop the paranoid thinking. Put yourself in his shoes. He's playing chess on TV! It's a match, not a tournament, meaning ALL attention is focussed on him and only him, whereas in a tournament he can relax as he's in a group and playing other humans of his own kind who sweat and get as hungry as he gets. He's playing chess in virtual 3D, something he's NEVER done before. It's EASY for any of you sitting at home, comfortable, with your computer programs mind you, pointing fingers, laughing, I can't believe he missed this or that. Hindsight is always 100 percent isn't that the old cliche? Kasparov doesn't deserve to be here? He lost to Deep Blue was the first argument (a computer which he knew nothing about, never got any games played by it, had a TEAM of strong grandmasters all in anti-Kasparov mode aiding the computer's already powerful situation). He had to play EXTRA-brilliant to be able to win even one game against a team of grandmasters and the fastest searcher of chess moves ever built. I find his victory in that completely inferior situation his most impressive achievement! Next up? Deep Junior. He gets into superior positions EVERY game, wins the first one, but after the critical blunder later on in the match he thinks, "If I can lose a game to a blunder like this, maybe I should be even more careful in the future." A wise decision to be sure, which ANYone would make were they in his shoes. But if one of you critics were in his shoes, I'm sure the mistake would have come much, much sooner than Garry's! Kasparov doesn't deserve to be here? Let's look at his other achievements SINCE he lost the title to Kramnik in 2000. He defeated Kramnik's Berlin Wall, he won a hat trick of super tournament victories, including Linares 2003 where he beautifully beat Ruslan Ponomariov the FIDE champ. Also tell me, is Kramnik now washed up? I believe his rating declined substantially. Even out of the 2800 range. Is Anand washed up? His scores versus other top players, in classical chess that is, has been less than optimal lately. Seems to me even though he declined from 2851, he's still the highest rated player ever, even over Bobby Fischer which everyone thinks is indestructible. I encourage you ALL to purchase the book "How to beat Bobby Fischer". In there, there are NUMEROUS examples of his mortality. NO one is perfect, not Capablanca, not Alekhine, not Fischer, not Karpov, not Kramnik, and no, not Kasparov either. This isn't rating inflation over the years either! These are the same formulas. Kasparov played the strongest opposition, and dominated that opposition long enough to surpass 2850! One little move, Rg7, is enough to change people's perceptions of Garry Kasparov? I wouldn't want you to be my friends if you change your loyalty after one mistake of mine. In the thread below they were harping on Garry for his bad nerves. Why don't you harp on Kramnik for his nerves? After HIS blunder against Fritz, he played more cautious afterwards too! Matter of fact, why don't you criticize ANY human who plays a computer for his/her faulty nerves? It's a nervous situation when you play a computer. It doesn't care what the pattern of pieces on the board look like! It just crunches numbers according to its code. Humans get distracted by what the pieces on the board look like. I think most of the Kasparov bashing is simply because they know he's gifted, and a fantastic, genius player, but they dislike everyone else's praise, and wish they got the praise instead, or wish someone else would get it. Garry praises Kramnik in annotations of their games, he praises Adams in virtually every one of their games, one of his Express analyses some years back was entitled "Gelfland stands his Ground." HE gives people credit where credit's due, why don't you do the same? Learn from Garry, and stop trying to discredit him and become disloyal to him after one mistake here and there. If it wasn't for Garry Kasparov I would have NEVER got into chess. If there was no Garry Kasparov, chess would be unknown to hundreds and hundreds of schools who now teach chess to their children. He's done AMAZING wonders for the game in which he loves, to spread it to others so they can share the same joy he gets from it. What a noble purpose! It seems to me that in itself earns him the right to sit in that chair aside from his obvious gift for the game.
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.