NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11883

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 6.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:50:33 EST
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 138

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Pope) writes:
>>   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.

Incorrect. Pure specualtion at its worst is to not speculate at all.

                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.

I do not believe that I stated I felt that this was the reason FIscher had for
his moves. I pointed out one example of a possibility all of the glorious
grandmasters have ignored.

Another possibility is that Fischer pllayed moves which a computer would see as
weak because Fischer knew his opponent well enough to know that playing such a
move would be a strong move--DUE TO HIS OPPONENTS WEAKNESSES.

Another possibility is that Fischer played poorly because he knew he was going
to win no matter what. I have heard speculation on this group that the match
was fixed, with both participants merely doing it fo rthe money with the
outcome known in advance.

Gee bucko...why didn't you attacke THOSE speculative posts???


>
>>   > 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.

You are now parroting what benjamin said in his essay. Please cite these
moves and compare them to the moves of the prior tournament, and please,
since Benjamin has not done so, compare the WHOLE tournaments, and not
just a few selected plays. (Wouldn't want to give examples out of context,
would you?)


                    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).

Umm...I don't believe I ever said he wasn't playing well. I don't believe I
have ever commented as to whether I felt Fischer played better then, or now. Oh
sure, lots of people like yourselves have tried to claim I was arguing one way
or the other...makes it easier to deal with when you are doing the attacking.

However, plainly stated, my view is this:

I do not feel that the GMs who have attacked Fischer's skills have given more
than anecdotal examples. They have taken MUCH out of context, and in light of
their admitted bias, I question their judgment for lack of proof.

I have posited speculation which has built upon the specualtion of others, but
that has nothing to do with the issues raised here.


>
> 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...

OK, since YOU have made a claim, that I have little understanding of the game,
I would like for you to explain WHY you feel, based upon my posts, that I have
a 'shaky understanding of' it.

And, as you vainly struggle for you proof, I want you to go back tthe above
paragraph you wrote, and relaize how sharply it applies to you. The minute you
stray from structured debate, you are going to take it on the chin every
time...

Your hobby is chess...my profession is arguing.


>
>> 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.

Once more, SO? Why would any self-sufficient adult base his philosophy of
ANYTHING on what another says. Do you feel I should modify my views to fit
those of Fischer???

And, if so, who dictates your opinions?


> 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.

True, and not relevant to this conversation in the least.


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