The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc, rec.games.chess.computer
From: David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:00:09 +0100 (BST)
Local: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: Greatest chess players ever? Capa, Kramnik, Karpov, Kasparov, *in that order* (cuz 'puters don't lie!)
raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote: Obviously, anything written with a popular audience in mind cannot > I find the rebuttal by Dr. S=F8ren Riis, Oxford, UK unconvincing for > a number of reasons. > - it was clearly written with a popular audience in mind (witness the possibly be accurate. > - it fails to understand the simple argument of 'normalization'. The Just because they used the same system for everyone doesn't mean the > Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko original article pointed out that Crafty > was used since it was open source and could be modified; the stronger > programs are not, but in any event Crafty is hardly a weak tactics > program and the authors are looking for a standardized (normalized) > way of spotting blunders. system was good or useful. For example, they could declare that every king move is a blunder. That's consistent across all the players but would declare players who tend to win in the endgame (where the king gets moved more) to be weaker than players who tend to win in the middlegame. You need to apply the same *good* measure to everyone. > -The fact that Riis found positional sacrifices not evaluated by No. A player who plays more positional sacrifices will be penalized > Crafty is not convincing since: (1) such positional sacrifices are > rare--as computers have shown, chess is largely tactics; (2) everybody > will be judged equally by Crafty, so others pos sacs are also scored > 'badly', so nobody will lose relative standing to one another for playing moves that crafty doesn't understand. > and (3), as long as assumption (1) is valid, Crafty will find the But World Champions make very few tactical mistakes. > most "mistake free" chess player, or one that plays closest to being > "tactics mistake free", which is a very good way to determine a good > chess player IMO. > Now of course the surrebutter (rebuttal to the rebuttal) will be I'm not convinced by that assertion. Tal played games that were sound > that players like Tal will score poorly--and indeed they (he) > did--but let's face it, Tal was more of a shock player that relied > on playing the man rather than the board. enough that they were very hard to defeat over the board. I don't think that counts as playing the man rather than the board. > In a match of coolheaded Karpov or Kramnik versus Tal, all in their Hmm... The two Botvinnik-Tal matches between them were only won by > prime, the less emotional player is likely to win Botvinnik +12-11=19. Hardly a convincing victory for the cool head. > Think of all the bogus moves made by beginners, sacrificing knight This argument is bogus. Sacrificing a knight against one's opponent's > for pawn, "to break up their pawn chain", with no positional > advantage. If you believe chess is positional play more than > tactics then such bogus moves should work more often than they do. > They do not. pawn structure is hardly a prime example of `positional chess'. You might as well say that all the bogus tactical shots attempted by beginners to `win material' or `checkmate the king' show that tactics play a small role in chess. Dave. -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||