home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!pmbarlow
- Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
- Subject: Re: A question for DMC
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.110052.14740@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
- From: pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru')
- Date: 22 Dec 92 11:00:52 -0500
- References: <18767@mindlink.bc.ca> <1992Dec22.012503.595@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
- Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"
- Lines: 62
-
- In article <1992Dec22.012503.595@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
- > In article <18767@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
- >> You also state:
- >> "Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game".
- >> While I have been involved in discussions on the net as to whether Fischer
- >> played poorly in some games or deliberately employed risky plans in order to
- >> try to win otherwise balanced positions (the (in)famous King walk in Game 8
- >> is the best example), I find this remark somewhat astounding. It is doubly
- >> astounding considering that Fischer is one of the greatest seekers of "truth"
- >> on the chess board in history - he would never make a move which thought
- >> objectively inferior for psychological reasons, although he has made "risky"
- >> moves which he assessed as playable (rightly or wrongly) in order to try to
- >> win (taking the h Pawn in the first game of the 1972 match is a good
- >> example).
- >
- > When I summed up my views on the game, I stated my views. Unlike others on this
- > board, I do not let outside opinions, even those of Fischer, dictate what I
- > will feel.
- > You or Fischer seek the 'truth' of chess. I seek the truth of conflict. My
- > opinion is that while the math of chess positions may be graphed, playing the
- > game against a human is always a crap shot. (admittedly, a good player has
- > loaded dice when playing a poorer player...)
-
- Something I agree with you on. There are no guarantees of a win when playing
- another human opponent. An E player stands a chance of beating a GM. Granted,
- it won't happen that often... but it CAN happen.
-
- >> So my question is simply whether you have played tournament chess and have a
- >> rating, or actually play chess at all.
- >
- > I'll answer that if you can tell me what difference my tournament play matters
- > in the views I present. And, it must be a reasonably valid argument/view you
- > make.
-
- Simple enough. When you want to ask if 1. a4 is a good move, who would you
- ask, the local expert who's been playing chess for 20 years, or the street
- urchin who would sooner eat one of his pawns than push it and knows nothing
- about the game?
-
- If you know nothing about the game in either the match or the tournament sense,
- how can we even begin to listen to you? That's the point I think he's trying
- to make.
-
- > The view that there is little
- >> objective truth is chess is very unusual, and not knowing about the first K-K
- >> match has me wondering whether you play chess or are just discussing all this
- >> abstractly.
- >
- > I did not in any way, shape, or form discuss the K-K matches when I was
- > referring to Fischer's playing to wear down his opponent. I find it difficult
- > to believe you do not know the histroy of the Fischer tournament way back
- > when...
-
- Just to be on the safe side, I know nothing about the 1st K-K match, except
- that Kasparov won it, and I know very little about Fischer's tournament
- history, except that he won 90% of his games.
-
- > DMC
-
- Hey, I'm just being calm about all this. Don't take any of this personal.
-
- TCG, pb.
-