From: fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto)
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:19:21 GMT

dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.014644.18244@u.washington.edu>, fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto) writes:
>> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> 
>>>In article <1992Dec21.105652.903@u.washington.edu>, fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto) writes:
>>>> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>I have little respect for 'critics' who lack the ability to climb to the top,
>>>>>and it spills over....
>>>> 
>> [stuff deleted]
>>>> 
>>>Because what Benjie (and the others) did was the equivelent of 
>>>taking two missed passes thrown by the WINNING Superbowl quarterback, and using
>>>them to 'prove' that the man is NOT as good as he was last year (which, by the
>>>way, his team ALSO won). 
>> 
>> Consider a quarterback who had a good regular season - high precentage
>> of completions, lots of yards passing, etc.  His team gets to the
>> Superbowl where he completes only 5 of 20 passes, has 3 intereceptions,
>> no TDs, etc., *but*, his team wins, in part because the opposing
>> team turns the ball over 8 times.  
 etc.

>Nice hypothetical. But, I doubt even Benjamin would compare Fischer's ability
>to being as poor as the QB in this analogy. 

You don't seem to understand the point of the analogy, so I'll try again.
You seem to be upset that the GMs have tried to compared Fischer's play in
FS-II with his earlier play.  However, as I have pointed out that this
happens all the time in sports.  Whether or not a sports writer is
justified in saying a particular athlete is "over-the-hill", or whatever
depends on the quality of the athlete's performance.  So if you wish to 
claim that the GMs are not justified in saying Fischer is not playing as 
well as before, you have to dispute their assessments of his play.  
Something you have refused to do.  

(Sorry if this wasn't clear the first time.)

[stuff deleted]

>My opinion of non-players who critique? Not much, I suppose you do need an
>outside source, as if you left it up to the coaches themselves, you would get
>horribly biased reults based toa large extent on politics and personal likes
>and dislikes.

>(Much like the current slamming of Fischer by GMs.)

>If it were someone who was beliveably neutral about Fischer, I would trust his
>views MUCh more than Benjamin and the others.

[stuff deleted]

>Besides, IF Benjamin had some big-picture analysis which rested on more than
>comparing a few plays against the tournament of the 70s, he would have given
>it.

I think he would claim that the examples he gave were sufficient for the
conclusions he drew.  You obviously disagree, but then at this point we
run into the question of whose analysis do you trust?  In my case, as
long as the annotater is willing give the analysis upon which his/her
comments are based, then they are entitled to make their comments. The
analysis may be right or wrong, but if they give it they are committed, and
if their analysis is consistently wrong, or biased, their reputations
will suffer.  I tend to trust that in the end the desire to protect
their reputations will lead to generally accurate analysis (whether the
annotater is biased or not, and except for cases where the annotater is
hiding opening secrets he/she doesn't wish to reveal).

If we define slamming as unjustified criticism, then it seems that you
have decided that the GMs are slamming Fischer, not because you can
refute their analysis, but primarily because you do not trust their 
neutrality.  

As you might guess from what I have said, I don't agree, and given
the nature of this argument I don't think we ever will.

Sorry we can't be in more agreement.

Bryant Fujimoto
fujimoto@denali.chem.washington.edu