Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 21:03:29 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2005 at 22:29:08, Robin Smith wrote: >On June 27, 2005 at 16:51:41, Les Fernandez wrote: > >>Perhaps Michael Adams, as some have suggested, was not the best pick for the >>Hydra match but atleast Adams was gracious throughout the event and did'nt look >>for excuses when he lost his games. Unlike Kasparov, Adams displayed better >>sportsmanship and deserves to be congratulated along with the Hydra team. I >>look forward to other GM's to step up and give it a go with as much class as >>Adams did. >> >>Les > >I agree completely Les. I am sure no one is more disappointed in the outcome >than Adams himself, yet he has not complained or made excuses. Adams is a class >act who deserves our respect, and not all the bashing that has taken place here >in CCC. I've not seen anyone call GM Adams a poor sport or ungentleman-like. But why make it an issue? Isn't that how all civilized people are supposed to behave in the first place? Isn't that everyone's duty? Why does one rate a special commendation for doing what he is supposed to do anyway? Curious. Many a foolish tactic was attempted with a stiff upper lip, a "pip pip" and a "tally ho" -- all very gentlemanly yet all very much a wrong strategy for victory. We don't get to see very many contests like this, so the frustration level is high among spectators when they see a rare oportunity squandered with so little preparation and a sub-optimal strategy employed, even though better strategies are widely known. Why bother playing if you are only going to charge into the teeth of the program's strengths and hand the computer team a marketing gift on a silver platter? I think that's where people are coming from on this issue, plain and simple. > >-Robin
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.