Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 12:10:42 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 13:25:13, Terry McCracken wrote: >On June 28, 2005 at 12:54:30, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On June 28, 2005 at 12:02:45, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On June 28, 2005 at 09:27:07, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On June 28, 2005 at 08:38:47, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 08:35:42, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 07:52:32, Jack Lad wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>. >>>>>> >>>>>>Give me the Black Pieces and give me any human in that position, they'll not >>>>>>escape. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would look at them and they would know they are toast! >>>>> >>>>>Give me the Black Pieces and even Hydra and it will not survive! >>>>> >>>>>I saw the end before Adams saw it was futile. >>>> >>>> >>>>I saw it even before you. I saw it from the opening moves. >>> >>>You're ignorance is showing. Do you actually play chess? I'm beginnig to have my >>>doubts. >>> >>>Tell me exactly when Adams was in trouble, tell me what move he made that was >>>risky, tell me when you knew he was lost,(1.e4 Doesn't Cut It!), tell me when he >>>actually had the advantage! >>> >>>BTW Adams as Black in the prior game had an easy draw, what was it? >> >> >>The fact is, I do the shooting and you do the dancing. So it has been. So it >>shall ever be. > >You're shooting your mouth off and not backing it up with facts, outside some >rather dubious statistics. Apparently posting facts and shooting off one's mouth are one and the same to you. > >You give me no respect, you give Robin no respect, and the worst of all you >don't give GM Michael Adams any respect, whatsoever. I think you give yourself enough respect without my help -- continually boasting that you are a great chessplayer while claiming others are not. You exalt yourself above others without any support other than your own estimation. When your "great chessplayer" opinion is shown to not agree with the facts, you fly off the handle and start your favorite style of discourse -- the ad-hominem attack. > >Adams treated the computer like another human GM It has been known for over a decade now that you can't do that and maintain a plus score against a strong program. >, he wanted to play solid chess >not some sort of anti-computer crap Solid chess is chess that obtains a winning score. Losing games is not "solid chess". It's _losing_ chess. >, and for that we get to see how Hydra plays >normal chess. Adams was a bit unlucky He wasn't unlucky. He was unwise. , and his opponent was unforgiving, but we >all learned something from this match, like Adams, with the exception of a few >people who believe 1.e4 and 1..e5 are terrible choices against a machine, even >when it's what you know best. In any contest, it is wisest to hit one's opponent where he is weakest. To do otherwise is to walk into the machine guns of the Somme. There is no honor in it. It's just a waste. > >Do you think Adams didn't consider the problems of open and semi-open positions >after 1. e4 and 1..e5? Do you think if he really wanted to he couldn't close or >even lock up these positions regardless of his opening choice? > >He didn't want to, he wanted to play regular chess, even if it cost him money >and points. He turned down draws and took risks, knowing he may very well lose. >So he did what he thought was best for him and his audience, even if it turned >out to be a debacle. Give Adams credit for being a real sporstman instead of >nitpicking his opening choices. He knew what he was doing and he knew it could >cost him games, but the play, the learning, his sincerity and integrity were >more important. I don't pretend to read minds. It is better to post facts. But you go right ahead and keep dancing. > >Terry
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.