From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Date: 3 Jan 93 11:28:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1i5r59INNn0u@meaddata.meaddata.com>, kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu) writes:
> In article <1993Jan1.132437.775@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1hvqecINNgaf@agate.berkeley.edu>, jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey C. Ely) writes:
>>> I want to see this match.  We will all see that DMC is not a chess player
>>> and he'll have to go find some other group to annoy.
>>
>>If YOU are so sure I can't play, why don't YOU accept the challenge???
>>
>>Jeff, (and all others like him) you sig line should read:
>>
>>"Another all-talk blowhard"
>>
>>I am willing to place my checkbook on the line--are YOU? Bruce wasn't,
>>Sven is going to do his best to weasel out of it, and YOU will, I bet,
>>foloow suit.
> 
> I haven't been following all the articles in this flame war, so I
> might not know what I'm about to get into.
> 
> It seems to me that you (DMC) are making this challenge (playing Bruce
> or Sven in person) knowing that they aren't willing to meet you in
> person (either that they don't want to meet you or aren't willing to
> risk a plane ticket, etc.).  This may be a legitimate challenge or it
> may be a bluff (you did say you were a lawyer, so you should have
> plenty of practice in carefully wording your arguments).

Um, actually, it was made before Harper declined. (He couldn't decline the
offer until I made it.) And, while I figured there was only a slight
possibility he would accept, i was ready to hop on the plane. (It is far better
to take a loss than to ever be known as someone who bluffs. Ya GOTTA be ready
to follow thru on everything you say.) 

> 
> Since I live in Dayton, Ohio, which is only a few hours drive from
> Toledo, I will accept the challenge.  I will offer to drive to the
> Univ. of Toledo and play you a three game match.  I would rather play
> a match than a single game, because I want to make sure I gain
> something from the trip.  However, I'm only rated about 1650 USCF, so
> I'm even more worthless than non-GM Bruce Harper :-).  Since you're
> willing to play someone of Bruce's strength (an Expert or Master, I
> forget which), you should have an easy time beating a Class B player
> like me.  If you win the match (which you should, considering your
> strength), you can post the games here with appropriate analysis so
> that I and the rest of the readers can learn from the games.  (Post
> mortem analysis is standard tournament ettiquite, don't you agree?).
> If I should win the match by some miracle (I have never beaten an
> Expert or Master), I would post the games and the analysis would
> probably be more worthless than GM Benjamin's of FS II. :-)
> 
> So how about it, DMC?  I would save you a plane ticket because I would
> be willing to drive to Toledo.  Do you want to play?

Sure, but there has to be a down side to SOMEONE! Christ, these people have
been crying to find out my skills for a long time, as if somehow my skills on
the chessboard would influence the validity of my posts here. (No one has yet
explained the reasoning behind that view, but the (il)logic still runs
rampant.)

So, if you can come up with a fitting wager...

I have it!

Bruce, since YOU are the one who 'expertly' reasoned I can't play,
IF I win this challenge, you get a bad haircut--a mohawk! If I don't know how
to play and loose, I get the mohawk. If I play well enough, so that an
IMPARTIAL judge decides that I have some playing skill, thus proving how wrong
you reasoning was, but still loose as my opponent is a better player, I don't
get a mohawk as I proved you wrong, while you don't have to get one as your
champion prevailed.

I like it!

Cheong, if he'll agree to these terms, you got a mini-tournamment!

> 
>>
>>> 
>>> Now both of you are dismayed at the other declining the match which means
>>> that each of you are willing to play.  Why doesn't one of you name a specific
>>> day and time to play a game on ICS.  If the other fails to show up, then the 
>>> argument can be considered settled.  So.. How about it!?  
>>
>>If you, or anyone else can answer me two things, I'll gladly play ANYONE on
>>ICS:
>>
>>1. How is a modem/fiber linkup going to 'prove' I know how to play chess? How
>>can ANY of you assure I just won't be dialed in on my 386 while my 486 runs a
>>chess program at max skill??? (Use your brains people, you can't.) So, even if
>>I win, people like YOU and SVEN and BRUCE will STILL claim I don't know how to
>>play.
>>
> 
> ** Obligatory chess discussion follows **
> 
> A person can "prove" that he/she knows how to play chess by playing a
> game against another person/machine and then provide analysis,
> annotations, commentaries, etc. so others can critique them.  (I think
> GM Benjiman can "prove" that he knows how to play.)
> 
> I think that the original challenge made by Bruce was to play via this
> newsgroup in a correspondence game.  I'm not sure how up-to-date you
> are with computer chess development, but it's a known fact that
> computers are *weakest* when playing at correspondence chess time
> limits.  This was proven when IM Mike Valvo soundly beat Deep Thought
> in a correspondence match.  So Bruce didn't have to worry that he was
> playing against a computer.

I wasn't aware of this testing. Could you supply some cite material so I can
study more? If this holds universally true, then the AI people should be
pissed. (At least, one camp will be, the other one will be doing backflips as
it helps validate their beliefs!)

> 
> However, on ICS at tournament time limits, a computer can beat a
> Master, but a computer is very weak at providing analysis and
> annotations other than spitting out a bunch of variations and
> assigning it a numerical rating.

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

> 
>>2. What does my ability to play have to ANYTHING with the issues I raise? Are
>>you 'people' so damned egotistic that you believe only a GM or IM can have a
>>valid opinion on an issue??? No wonder you bought Benjie's article
>>wholesale--you are too wrapped up in titles to, just for one second, realize
>>that a GM is only an expert at ONE thing. And that one thing is playing chess.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>NOT commenting on other GMs games. NOT international politics. NOT the law. NOT
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>ANYTHING except playing chess. Suppose Bruce trounces me wholesale? So what?
>>Does that prove I don't know how to play? Does it mean the issues on policies
>>and law I raised are invalid? If I beat Benjamin Himself, would that make his
>>views wrong and mine right?
> 
> Didn't someone bring up the analogy that an artist can give a better
> opinion about art than an art critic could?  So couldn't a GM can give
> a better opinion about chess than someone like me?  Since I can't play
> chess as well as GM Benjiman, I don't think I could find faults in his
> "art" or his analysis.

Perhaps. While it is true he would be better than you or I in the analysis,
that still leaves a gap when he is critiquing at his own, or a higher level.
Part of this is the 'personal baggage' he brings into the game. He has his own
notions of what work best. These MUST be flawed as he is human. Another human
will have different opinions, and there are only two things which can give a
relaible answer:

1. God comes down with his opinion.
2. Winner wins and that is it.

Not very escoteric, I admit, but it is practical.

> 
>>
>> [discussion about Sven and Bruce deleted to save bandwidth :-)]
>>
>>Sure, I'd GLADLY play him over the fibers IF there were some way of proving no
>>one/thing was giving me moves. That way, even if I lost, I would still shame
>>him into admitting that his 'expert opinion' was flat out wrong.
>>
>>I want to humiliate that man to the very last degree. So, if any of you can
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>come up with an honesty assurance program, the match WILL happen.
>>
> 
> I must agree that some of the flames that were directed at DMC were
> very rude and childish and uncalled for.  Everyone is entitled to an
> opinion!!  But openly admitting that you want to "humiliate Bruce to
> the very last degree"?  Aren't you going overboard, too?

Maybe. Ok, ok, I guess I have extracted my pound of flesh...

> 
>>(And, I refuse to accept Harper's claim that he trusts me to be honest. If he
>>trusted me, he never would have posted his 'belief' that I could not play a
>>second time!)
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> By the way, anyone got a good library of rating supplements?  What's DMC's 
>>> rating?  Elliot?
>>
>>You won't find me in there. It has been too long since I have played a
>>tournament.
>>
> 
> Didn't someone posted that the USCF kept a database of all players who
> were ever rated?  Are there any USCF representatives on the Usenet who
> can confirm/deny this?
> 
> So DMC hasn't played a tournament game in years (20 years, maybe).

20! Christ! I am only 30!!!

I was thinking of the 2 year log kept in one of those chess rags.

> I propose a DMC vs. Harper match, first to win 10 games, draws not
> counting, and DMC retains the title in a 9-9 tie. :-) :-)

What title??? I have title to retain? 

OH boy, it's been a while since I held a chess related title!



> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> --
> 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

Cheong, are you twins?? ;-)

DMC


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess