NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11906

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 9.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!miavx1!pmbarlow
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru')
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:38:38 -0500
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"
Lines: 173

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

Ah.  Something ELSE I agree with you on.

>>                 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.

I might add, it's a valid thought.  I know people who will play bad moves so as
to get their weaker opponents into a false sense of security.  Then the good
player recovers, and BLAM! the fish never knows what hit him.  Believe me, on
many an occasion, I've been on the receiving end of something like this, and I
know this because they tell me so in the analysis room afterwards.

> 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.

Yet another valid thought from DMC.  What's the saying...?  "Know your enemy,
and know yourself, and you shall always be victorious."  Or something like
that.  The point is the same, though.

> 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.

Ah, but that's speculation there.  Although it IS a possibility, I don't think
this was the case at all.  Whether or not the match was fixed is one thing, and
that's another discussion for another time... but I don't think Fischer would
have played badly knowing that he would win anyway.  Closer to the truth is
probably that 20 years of inactivity had done its work on Fischer, and it
showed.  And before you ask, no, I didn't analyse the games in question, but I
go solely on the opinion of those that post here, and that of those at my chess
club.  So I'm not a great judge of how well Fischer played.

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

I'll let him answer that... I didn't because I've been examing and on holiday
for the last 10 days.

>> 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?)

Given, I haven't even read Benjamin's essay... but how can you flame an
opinion?  He's certainly entitled to one, even if its the wrong one according
to you...

And as far as comparing his last two appearances.... actually, all comparison
will be defied, seeing as how the two appearances are both against the same
player, and are separated by 20 years.  But perhaps you can go by performances.
In 21 games 20 years ago, Spassky only managed 2 points.  In 30 games 2 months
ago, Spassky managed 5 points.  Given, had the number of games been the same,
the two performances would be a little easier to compare.  But then consider
that Spassky had already scored 4 points by the end of the 21st game in F-S II.
That indicates one of three things:
a) Spassky got better.
b) Fischer got worse.
c) Neither.  it's just the Law of Averages at work again.

My personal preference is (c).  His is (b).  Yours, DMC, I would guess to be
close but not exactly (c)... but then that's just a guess.

>>                     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.

It'd be an interesting comment, one way or the other, but as you so fondly
point out from time to time, it's not really all that relevant.

> 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.

I'm not going to spend time defending a GM's opinions... basically because I
know I can't do it.  But then you hit the lack of proof thing.  My assumption
is that these people have an enormous backlog of chess games.  They probably
have all the Informants on CD-ROM.  And they probably assume that the
ultra-serious player has SOMETHING on Fischer's past.  Most articles offering
analysis are geared toward those who intend to learn from the games therein.
When you combine the two, really, all you have to do is say, "This play is not
as brilliant as the play he had at Linares 1968."  From there, it lies with the
player, to go find all of Fischer's games from Linares '68.  At that point, you
can play over both sets of games and form your own opinions... just as Joel
Benjamin has done.

>> 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.

Relax.  Try not to take any of this personal.  It's just a group of people
offering forth their opinions.  And, unlike the courtroom, they don't need
proof to back up their opinions.

Whether or not I agree with everything that you or anyone else has said,
though, is my business and mine alone.

>>> 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???

Uh, no.  The Earth has one psychotic chess player, it doesn't need another.  As
for the reducing chess to math part... not 99%... 50%, maybe.

> And, if so, who dictates your opinions?

Mostly, I do.  But I react to what I see and hear.  And, though I'm not one to
follow trends, I generally agree with everything everyone says here, basically
becuase I don't understand much of it, and it sounds just fine to me anyway.
My priorities do not involve playing a good game of chess anymore.


Just my $0.02...

TCG, pb.