Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:29:23 11/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2003 at 21:15:58, Timmay wrote: >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. Well said! Thank You!
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.