Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:49:29 11/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 1998 at 03:25:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On November 15, 1998 at 09:57:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>This is true... but lets go back to "pre-NY". Who won the first match? >>Kasparov. Did he *have* to play IBM a second match? Of course not. Why >>did he do it? for the $700,000 dollar winner's prize of course. But the >>point is this: Kasparov held *all* the cards. He could have required any >>arrangement he wanted. He wanted DB "on the stage"? He could have easily >>demanded that. IE IBM wanted to play *him*. And he failed to stipulate >>match conditions that he would like (he did haggle over the unimportant >>details like bringing an oddball electronic clock, etc). So again, I'd say >>this was a screw-up by Kasparov and not IBM. They almost had to accept any >>requirement he laid out... because they wanted to play *him*... > >What I've seen in print from Kasparov about this was that he was surprised by >IBM's attitude after the contract was signed. It doesn't sound like he thought >that their will to win would be as high as it was. > >If you and I are talking about who's going to pay for the phone call we act >differently than we do if you are a new car salesman and I am trying to buy a >car from you. There is a completely different level of seriousness, and when >you expect one and get the other, it is disconcerting. > >I can imagine someone in the midst of match preparation and the early stages of >the match getting seriously freaked out. > >bruce I wouldn't argue. But when he made a statement about DB being locked away with GM's hovering around, both in match 1 and in match 2, wouldn't you say that was nothing but "sour grapes"? IE if he didn't like it in match 1, wouldn't/shouldn't he make that an issue resolved by contractual agreement before match 2? Or do you suppose that he (a) got whacked and (b) then enumerated every possible thing that he didn't like (and which he never suggested changing either) to try and make it look like the deck was stacked against him? IE when we played David Levy in 1984, if we had won I wonder if he'd have raised all those same issues? I somehow doubt it. We wanted to play *him* and not the other way around, so he dictated how we had to operate (terminal to machine in one room, the game in another, to keep distractions down. Lost a lot of time for us, but we agreed to it. Kasparov could have done the same... But it was only important *after* the fact as an excuse...
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.