NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11952

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.8 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: A question for DMC
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:23:21 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 95

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru') writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (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.

Exactly. I forget what master said this (If you have a copy of
Chess--Quotations From The Masters, small book, circa 1975, I can't find my
copy, but it is in there) "First rate players sometimes lose to second rate
players because second rate players sometimes play first rate game."

Of course it helps when the first-rate player plays piss poor.

>
>>> 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.

That would be a valid argument IF I were arguing about the match. I have not.
He's missing the point which I make over and over and over agin which is:

I am disputing Benjamin, and the other GMs analysis not for being incorrect,
but on being under-documented, and quite possibly skewed by a biased critic.


>
>>                     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.

Yeah, no I was talking about the last half-dozen games of F-S I. Although it is
subjet to debate, there is a belief Fisher coasted then, and made Mr. S. come
after him.

>
>> DMC
>
> Hey, I'm just being calm about all this.  Don't take any of this personal.
>
> TCG, pb.

Relax, this is one of the few mature, rational, and thouht out posts I have
seen on here. Wish more people followed your example. It would be good for the
sport if some of these 'critics' took their emotionalism out of the debate.

Of course, then they would have nothing to say...

DMC