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: help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com>
Date: 26 Apr 2007 21:00:09 -0700
Local: Fri, Apr 27 2007 12:00 am
Subject: Re: Greatest chess players ever? Capa, Kramnik, Karpov, Kasparov, *in that order* (cuz 'puters don't lie!)
On Apr 26, 3:18 pm, Ron <ronaldinh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The whole idea of judging a player by his "error rate" presumes that the Right. This is precisely the, um, strategy I use when > way to win at chess is to commit no errors. > But a quick look at players like Lasker, Tal, and Bronstein shows that I make all my errors. I am deliberately failing to see the correct move and instead playing a turkey, with the intention of inducing a similar blunder by my opponent. Of course, I could always find the best move if I really wanted to; I just *want* to play poorly. ;>D > Many of Tal's sacrifices would be considered errors by a chess program This is why it is rather unfair to try and judge > (and that's just counting the ones where you could expect a program to > see it through to the end, in all variations, in however much time you > gave it - and if you're only giving even a top program ten minutes a > move, you're not getting there on a lot of sacrifices) but Tal wasn't > trying to play perfect chess. He was trying to win games. competitive players by how closely their moves match up to a chess program; the program is under no pressure to protect its title, for instance. Nor is it ever faced with stupid questions from reporters like- Q: "In game one, why did you allow 42.Q-g7 mate?" A: "As world champion, I never overlook such things. Clearly then, I must have been offered, and accepted, a huge bribe, of say, ten billion dollars. Pardon me, but I *must* get to the bank before it closes. The interest I'm losing as we speak is KILLING me!" > And judging by his results (a world championship; the longest undefeated Because of all the hype surrounding GM Fischer > streak in tournament games) he did so incredibly well. and all the controversies brought on by Cold War politics, we seldom remember that even as BF was taking the title from the "evil axis" in 1972, at the same time GM Tal was undergoing a period of near invincibility -- the streak you mentioned above. Countless fans of BF will recount a 6-0 match victory or two, while never once realizing the simultaneous exploits of GM Tal, who by the way, "took" the year 1972 according to Chessmetrics, over GM Fischer! > To say, therefore, that he was making errors strikes me as somewhat If we go by what GM Botvinnik said, only Tigran > absurd. Petrosian never made any (combinational) errors. (In the position after 1.e4 Nc6 2.Qh5 Nb8 3.Qxf7+, one would be wise to decline the sac according to GM Botvinnik's advice, if GM Petrosian has White.) > If the "error" was never intended to be an irrefutable move, and it All this shows is how closely a given player's > leads directly to victory against a top player, how can you call it an > error? world championship games matched up with move selections by a crippled Crafty. I don't know about you, but if I were world champion, I would hope to be a bit stronger than crippled Crafty, and want my moves to match up well in simple tactical exchanges, but not otherwise. I really think the scope of such a statistical -- help bot 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.
| |||||||||||||