Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 08:40:59 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 11:32:05, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 10:30:47, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On January 26, 2000 at 10:21:02, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2000 at 09:06:42, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2000 at 09:02:01, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 08:26:42, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 07:45:02, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 26, 2000 at 07:17:05, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>About being "World champion, the rest is details", it's a classic case of >>>>>>>>hypostatization, which is "to attribute real identity to a concept." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. We create a Swiss tournament of 11 rounds and name it World Championship. >>>>>>>>2. Program X wins the tournament and becomes World Champion. >>>>>>>>3. We are to believe that program X is the best because it is the World Champion >>>>>>>>and the rest is details. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If this 11 round tournament would have given another name, for instance ICCA >>>>>>>>championship, steps 2 and 3 wouldn't cross anybody's mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>With this I don't intend to attack Shredder 4, Junior 4.6 or Fritz 3, all fine >>>>>>>>programs and none of them the best, but to question the meaning of a name. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No human would become world champion after playing a total of 11 games in his >>>>>>>>life, and I don't think programs should either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Enrique >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Would you knock off the Champions League? It's the same system and generally >>>>>>>accepted. The one who wins is the strongest. >>>>>> >>>>>>Therefore Junior 4.6 was the strongest, and you know it wasn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can't compare chess and football, for the same reason that you can't compare >>>>>>apples and oranges. But if you want to stick to your analogy, imagine a >>>>>>Champions League consisting of 5 minute games. >>>>>> >>>>>>Imagine also that FIDE organizes a World Championship in the form of a Swiss >>>>>>tournament of 11 rounds. Whould you consider the winner as World Champion? The >>>>>>Las Vegas thing crowned Khalifman as World Champion. Who believes in it? >>>>>>Kasparov is World Champion after winning many matches of all sort and an >>>>>>extraordinary career. We all believe he is the World Champion. >>>>>> >>>>>>Enrique >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Sorry Enrique but I for one don't believe G. Kasparov is World Champion any more >>>>>than Bobby Fischer is World Champion. I believe GK is the strongest player in >>>>>the World >>>> >>>>This was my point. And you wouldn't believe it if he would have only won a Swiss >>>>of 11 rounds. >>>> >>>>> but he is not World Champion in my mind. >>>> >>>>As a Kasparov fan, I disagree with you. But this is a different issue. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>>> >>> >>>I'm sure we can agree to disagree. I notice that you chopped out my "he is not >>>world champion in my mind" and disagreed with that >> >>Yes, I agreed with the part "I believe GK is the strongest player in the World", >>and that's why the chopping out. >> >>> but you conviently >> >>No convenience or inconvenience. It just happened that I said what I had to say >>about all this. >> >>> ignored >>>the paragraph below and provided no counter argument. Is this because it is >>>really the bottom line? >> >>In my opinion, no. That's why I said in my first post that it is a case of >>hypostatization: you give a name to an event and then believe in it and in all >>the consequences. Change the name and the whole panorama changes with it, in >>spite of being the same event. >> >>Enrique >> > >Hello Enrique, >Of course you are correct in what you say but is it not true that all >"Titles/Championships" are this way. Who has the right to declare anyone "World >Champion?" Really no-one and everyone. The boxing world proved that you can >have 3 or 4 world champions long ago. So it comes down to who do you recognize >as the governing body of any sport/game as to who can bestow the title to an >individual/team of World Champion. It is after all only a title. Hopefully it >recoginizes the "Best". As I said that is not always the case. Nobody on the >planet can argue who the best chess player in the world is right now. It's >obvious. It would be great if all sports were that way. But does he have the >right to bestow the title on himself just because he is the best? Frankly that >kind of arrogance is what I don't like about GK. I don't really know what is the state of affairs in the PCA regarding the title issue. I can only say that I would like to see the championship played every 2 years as it is supposed to, and that I dislike the fact that it is not being played for the lack of economic support, as in the Kasparov-Shirov match. I agree with you that all this looks too messy altogether. Enrique >Jim Walker >>>>> Fischer lost his title by >>>>>refusing to compete. Why is this different for GK? The title or Championship >>>>>is won in any sport/game by competing for it and luck may play a part and the >>>>>best may not always win but the winner is ALWAYS CHAMPION. >>>>>Jim Walker
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.