From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:40:14 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec22.101921.26160@u.washington.edu>, fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto) writes:
> 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.  

That is because I have claimed that their assessments have been backed up with,
at best, only a few examples, and are taken out of context!!!

Christ man! What we have here is a sportswriter who is says:

"Smith is not neraly the QB he once was, he actually got sacked once in the
championship game!"

Listen VERY carfully, that is NOT enough in terms of examples for the
sportswriter to be taken seriously.

I dispute Bejamin's claims, becuase they are like a scientist who uses
one person in a clinical study, and when the sientist, who is violently 
opposed to even testing the drug, finds negative results, says, "See, this drug
is a flop." 

Benjamin has made claims backed with sketchy, out-of context examples. That is
poor academic proffesionalism. I EXPECT more from someone who claims to be an
'expert'.

I am not claiming FIscher played better, worse, or the same as before. I
dispute his findings based upon his technique, and would like to see some
better technique used.

Now, if you can not understand the immediately preceeding two sentences, go to
a high school english teacher and ask her to explin them to you!


> 
> (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).

You put a lot of faith into human nature....Especially when the comments start
out with an admisson of bias.

> 
> 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.  

Not just their neutrality, but their ability to look at thebig picture. Sure,
if you run the piece positions through a Cray, you can say, "This would have
been, based upon the sheer math, a better move." However, until you can program
a human opponent's psyche into the Cray, you can NEVER claim the the
mathematically better move was the right move to play. (unless, of course, it
leads directly to check/mate)


> 
> 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.

Agreement is the end of learning.

> 
> Bryant Fujimoto
> fujimoto@denali.chem.washington.edu
> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess