NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11834

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 4.0 KB | 81 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!news.kpc.com!kpc!pope
From: [e-mail] (John Pope)
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 20 Dec 92 23:33:36 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:44:09 GMT
Lines: 66

>   I have little respect for 'critics' who lack the ability to climb to the top,
>   and it spills over....

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-). Now *that's* what I call chutzpah...

>   Yes, perhaps a computer can sit back and do calculations and determine
>   strengths and weaknesses of positions. And, if Bobby Fischer had been playing a
>   computer, one could argue that he should have made move X. But he was playing a
>   human who already had great respect for his skill at doing the impossible with
>   the pieces. Maybe Fischer made less than excellent moves at times because he
>   wanted to make his opponent spend time examining some trial structure of the
>   pieces.

Pure speculation at its worst.  The hypothesis that Fischer would
indulge in playing moves that he knew were objectively bad as a part
of his match strategy betrays a fundamental ignorance of his lifelong
approach to the game. His credo has always been "I don't believe in
psychology, I believe in good moves". He has not veered from that
philosophy to date, nor is there any reason to believe that he has
done so in FS-II. If you are going to continue to argue this line of
reasoning, going as it does against all available evidence, the burden
of proof rests on YOU.

>   > When chess games are analyzed, a very strong computer can point out better
>   > moves.  We don't need a [potentially biased] human to do so.  These
>   > corrections do not take away from the match participants, yet they do
>   > provide instructional value.  It's funny to see the analysis reduced to
>   > what is perceived as personal attacks.  Chess moves are just that, chess
>   > moves.  They are not an attempt to get "inside of Fischer's mind" or know
>   > "what his strategy was."
>
>   Well, when you couple that with statements which indicate the author believes
>   that this is proof that Fischer is not as strong a player, you take it out of
>   the realm of textbook discussion into one of arguing about someone's skill,
>   which is so much MM.

Arguing about someone's "motives" for a series of moves is
non-verifiable and therefore MM.  Analysis of the quality of a series
of chess moves is largely independently verifiable by a non-biased
machine and is therefore not MM at all.  The quality of the games,
judged by human and non-human alike, has simply not been up to where
Fischer was in 1972, which is why people have concluded that he is not
(yet) playing as well as he did then. If you want to say that he's not
playing well as a part of his match strategy, then prove it (or at
least advance a convincing argument).

The real MM here is the unsubstantiated series of charges (made against
people who are professionals in a game you appear to have at best a
shaky understanding of) being bleated in message after flatulent,
insubstantial message...

> Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game.

That may be true for the way *you* play chess. Fischer, to judge by
direct quotes and his published writings, would say just the opposite.
His best games show a constant striving for the absolute best move, a
mathematically pristine punishment of inexact play if you will, not of
a Lasker-like 'setting the opponent problems through difficult (but
objectively bad) moves' strategy. I suggest you play over some of his
games - they really are quite good.

--
John Pope
[e-mail]
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
[phone]