Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:12:12 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1999 at 03:42:37, Prakash Das wrote: [snip] > > I have to respond strongly to this post. It's clear to me that Bob Hyatt has no >concept of competitive tournament play at the highhest levels. You comment for >example that "_every_ game.. has at least one blunder is non-sensical.. Of >course every loss and win is due to one or more blunders by the party.. A >blunder is a large term covering many ascepts of bad play. If a computer or >human wins a game, it's because there was a "blunder" committed. What then is >your point? > > That Kasparov's opponent's lose because they are intimidated by him is not his >problem. That's their problem, this is a competitive sport. Don't many humans >get psyched when playing computers? So, in that case, I will discount ALL >computer wins against humans. I will also discount ALL wins by that computer >against other computers too because it won because of blunder(s) by the other. > > It's the evolving world of chess.. years ago, when computer training was not an >integral part of chess training, Tal and Morphy and others produced such >sacrificial attacking games. When told that later analysis showed that his sac >was flawed, he said: "That does not matter to me. The result at the board is >what counts to me". Now, if Tal had still playing competitive chess today, >perhaps he would adjust his play accordingly, and still win. Why? Because great >players like Tal, Kasparov (and a very few others) would know how to adjust. > > So, to use your logic, I discount all wins by your computer Crafty. You have >yet to prove that(1) it plays perfect chess (2) _never_ wins due solely to >blunders by it's opponents (3) since it psyches its opponents, it's results >don't count. And after all this, I will discredit any win by saying that it was >due to a blunder by the other party. > > The move ..Rxd4! was played under the stress of a high level tournament >condition. It introduced a labyrinth of complications, the acceptance of which >led to a stunning game. > If this move makes Kasparov a bad player, I wonder how much more of a bad >player is Topalov for playing ..cxd4? > > In conclusion, I seriouly doubt your judgement regarding matters non-chess >programming. Fairness is demonstrated by actions, not by words.. and your long >history of prejudice against Kasparov is a strong deterrent for me to take your >comments seriously. I am sorry to say this (however your work regarding crafty >is a different matter). > > Prakash Das Hard to argue with your logic Prakash. Nobody analyzes Michael Jorden's moves when he wins and says "Yes he scored the bucket, but if he would have spun first, he would have gotten the foul as well.". Well stated Prakash! KarinsDad :)
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.