From: kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 23:09:16 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kcy@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: monster.meaddata.com

pmb = Pete Barlow
kcy = Cheong Yu
dmc = DMC (Darell M. Cosgrove, *not* Don Wedding)

pmb> [hair match challenge deleted]

kcy> I'm not sure why Bruce would have to be involved in this challenge.  I
kcy> thought the match was supposed to be against you and me.  My offer was
kcy> to play a three-game match, and the winner will post the games here
kcy> with accompanying analysis, annotations, etc.  The games can be
kcy> critiqued by the rest of the world, so that we can all discuss chess.
kcy> I think Bruce has put you in his kill file, or has made a New Year's
kcy> resolution to not follow-up to your posts.  If I were him, I wouldn't
kcy> wager on a Class B player.  Heck, I surely wouldn't wager my own hair
kcy> on my chess ability.  :-)

pmb> Neither would I.  I've seen your hair, Cheong...  :-)

Ouch, that was a low-blow, Pete!  Are you insulting my lack of hair or
my lack of chess-playing ability?  And I've seen your hair, too.  It
looks like you haven't lost a bet in years.  Or did you bet someone
that you won't get a haircut until you actually won a tournament?  :-)
:-) :-)

dmc> Why would I analyze a game? My overall philosophy is you won or you lost, and
dmc> you learn from your own mistakes, not those of others.

pmb> Funny... that sounds like ME!  That's really scary.

Please don't compare yourself to DMC.  Are you trying to imply that
you two have comparable chess skills?  :-)

kcy> I'm not quite convinced that a GM's analysis must be flawed because he
kcy> is human, and how that would translates into bias.  If a GM's analysis
kcy> if flawed, how can I prove it?  I don't even have the chess abilities
kcy> to find any inaccuracies or omissions in his analysis.  Is Einstein's
kcy> notion of physics flawed because he is human?  If they were flawed,
kcy> how can I show it?

pmb> Simple.  Get smarter than Einstein, then work on it.

I don't think I have to be smarter than Einstein to find flaws in his
theories.  If, from what I know of physics, I can show Einstein's
theories are wrong, I have the right to question his analysis.  The
point is that, from what I know of physics, I can't find anything
wrong with his theories, so I have no right to argue that his
judgement is suspect.  Similarly, from my knowledge of chess, if I
can't find errors in a GM's analysis, I have no right to question his
analysis (i.e. that the analysis was biased or otherwise tainted by
jealousy or bitterness, etc.).

kcy> So, DMC, are we going to play a three-game match?  The winner gets to
kcy> post the games with accompanying analysis for everyone to scrutinize.
kcy> I guess the loser can get to post counter-analysis, or try to show
kcy> that the analysis is biased or unbiased. :-)

pmb> Well, if it's an arbiter you're looking for, then I'll do it.  I mean... *I*
pmb> think I'm impartial...

Great!  Now we have an official USCF TD for the match.  I confirm that
Pete is fair and impartial, in fact, he is one of the best TD I've
ever met.  (Wait, I only know two TD's; well, never mind)

:-) :-)

-- 
Cheong Yu             |                        |        (513) 865-7048
Mead Data Central     |                        |   Fax: (513) 865-1755
P.O. Box 933          |                        |      kcy@meaddata.com
Dayton, Ohio  45401   |                        |    uunet!meaddata!kcy