Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:17:11 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 08:15:32, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >There would be always the question what >would have been if he played a more attacking (and more interesting) chess >match? > >I think that's why Adams choose to go down proudly playing his (maybe not) best >attacking style. If he wins, he is the hero. If he wins with sneaky play, the he >is the guy who won the boring match. Ergo there is more to win with attractive >play. And most GMs want to play attractive (or what they consider attractive, >even if it's the Berlin defense). And they want to win. > >regards >Andy Yes, I could well agree with you but perhaps there is also a point here: when Karpov won tournament after tournament and beat also Korchnoi, the sparkling personality from Leningrad, everybody (superficially) judged that this chess were boring. Because Karpov is a player who mainly won because he was talented to build up a strong concert with his officers without big sacrifices for instance. But to the experts Karpov was a real genius. So - you will never get the applauding from the crowd if your successes are basing on too sophisticated operations. And then this: if you want to dominate a machine you MUST play against its weaknesses but this means you must play astonishing foolish chess, or like you call it "boring chess". Yes, if we call boring if you win a game in chess on the base of long-term strategies. Did you read the LUTZ articles about HYDRA? Lutz played advanced chess games against Hydra and almost always could easily draw. Now that would be boring chess. Although Adams would be happy now if he had held a final draw.
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.