From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:46:55 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec13.180811.15558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.193455.462@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.055515.4606@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec11.165710.448@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>>>>[attribution line stupidly deleted :(]
>>>>>>But, one player may be better than all the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A fact both of you have forgotten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DMC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well no they didn't.  It's just not true.  I quote GM Andy Soltis in
>>>>> [post about how there isn't a best chess player because every game
>>> 
>>> In either case, there is a set of rules determining who plays.  And
>>> those rules must be abided by to legitimately claim the title of
>>> World Champion.  Fischer did not abide by those rules, therefore he
>>> can't claim the title.
>>
>>But he HAS the title. Go recheck your logic and compare it with reality.
>>Unless, of course, you wish to decalre him not your 'second-rate-players-
>>association-non-champion', which of course you are entitled to do.
>>
> 
> I thought you meant the current World Champion title.  That he has
> proven his right to the 1972 title is, in my mind, unquestionable.
> The fact remains that the current World Champion title is
> surrounded by certain rules to protect its integrity.  Whether
> those rules are justified, I do not know, but I _do_ know they
> are necessary to come up with the needed generalization:
> "Joe Chessplayer is World Champion."  And, whether the "second-
> rate players-association" that awards the title is indeed
> second-rate, I do not know.  I am a fourth-rate player myself.
> On the other hand, the system in place has produced some terrific
> chess, so I don't see anything wrong with it.  If Fischer is really
> as great as you say (he may be, I guess everyone else could be wrong),
> then he has the right to play within the rules and stomp everyone
> else into the ground.  And that, I am sure, would produce some
> GREAT chess, so I am all for him trying his hardest.

And if he plays outside of the rules, an still stomps them into the ground, as
he has been doing? Does the fact he did not abide by the laws of civilized
English gentleman make him less talented? Or more?

And, waht does this have to do with Benjamin's remarks? Let the GMs defend
themselves...if they can.



> 
>>> 
>>> And you missed the point of my original post--which was that there is
>>> NO accurate way to determine who the best chessplayer "really" is
>>> (the "real" best chessplayer being able to beat "all the rest"),
>>> because different people play better against different kinds of
> 
> No, what I was talking about was the concept of "best chessplayer in
> the world" versus the _title_ "World Champion".  As I stated earlier,
> there is NO way to determine the "best chessplayer in the world", without
> having that person play EVERY opponent who wants to, and win.
> My first point was that this is logistically impossible, unless at some
> future date, the "best chessplayer in the world" is a computer.

Then the title best college basketball team has no meaning as well?


> Even then, it is wildly improbable.
> My second point was that this will _never_ produce a "best chessplayer
> in the world" anyway, since there is really no accurate way to
> quantify performance in chess so that you can say with _absolute_
> certainty: "Yeah, Bob Fianchetto will ALWAYS beat Linda Zugzwang
> because their MagicRatingSystemO'TheWorld (tm) says so."

Who was the last person to beat Fischer?

>               
> You did what I used to do in debate---recasted my words into something
> else and responded to that something else.  [sigh], Those were the
> days.

Well, from someone who has taken the original issue and tried to twist into a
sepearte unrelated issue, you appear to have not progressed very far...

Now, let me state it clearly, as Mr. Wedding has been repeatedly calling for
others to do:

"What basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not as good as he
was?"

DMC


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess