From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding the issues!
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:09:27 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services


> 
> 
> Ok, instead of all of these personal attacks, the best way to resolve this 
> is a discussion which focuses on the points raised by Mr. Wedding and the 
> GM articles in Chess Chow and Chess Life.  I think the major claim that 
> Mr. Wedding was disputing was that Fischer played a lot worse than 
> he did in the 1972 match, 

no, i don't dispute this. again, if a GM says a move is BAD and gives
the better alternative then i'll believe it.  the GM/IM crowd have
done that. they have pointed out numerous moves where there were 
better continuations.  so here is what i think since everybody seems 
to be misinterpreting it...

*I AM NOT DISPUTING WHAT IS A GOOD MOVE OR A BAD MOVE*




> and that he is nowhere near his previous 
> level or Kasparov's current level (not to mention other elite GM's)
> Benjamin (in CC) claimed this and analyzed some of the games as evidence.

BINGO!

*THIS* is what i'm disputing. I am mad as hell that because they find
a flawed game(s), it necessarily means bobby is a "has been" and a
pretender to the throne. they (the GM/IM crowd) feel that bobby is a
"Myth that should be exploded".

they take the BAD MOVES OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE MATCH CONDITIONS. this
was a match where the players would play

a) nine hours a day
b) four days a week
c) without an adjournment where they could sleep while an army of
   "santa's little helpers" would find the best moves for when the
   game resumed
d) and borris spassky was playing with a severe urinary track infection
   (which is the same thing that cost Tal the world championship in the
   early 60's)

obviously, under the above conditions, the games ain't gonna be no gems.
they're gonna be Hard fought, dirty, bloody street brawls where the last
guy standing wins.

when kasparov and karpov played, it was like two guys boxing in a ring,
with a referee, and 3 minute rounds, etc. obviously, the technique of
the players would be superior under the circumstances. 

another example might be the difference between playing the super bowl
on a muddy, rainy, slipry, 33 degree, cloudy, day while another super bowl
is played in the huston astrodome under the most sterile and perfect
conditions. if in the first game, there are a lot of fumbles and 
interceptions....does it mean that the quarterbacks suck????? of course not,
it's what is to be expected. in the second game each team executes their
games flawlessly...does that mean they're better????

only way to tell is when all conditions are equal. 

to comment on a move is fine, to comment on the ABILITY of the players
under the circumstances is mean, dirty, and unfair.


but what i am saying is obvious to even a non chess playing person...
and i can't see anybody disputing it. (anybody care to????)

now, then i reason, "hey, if *I* can understand a bad move under the
circumstance of the match...why can't Joel Benjamin, Mark Ginsburgh, or
the bone heads at Chess Life????"

well, i can't in my wildest dreams imagine that they're stupid. you don't
get to be a GM for being stupid.

so, it *MUST* have occurred to them, right?????

but yet, they *IGNORE* it and simply dismiss bobby as a has been.

THIS IS MY DISPUTE!!!!!!!!


can i possibly make it any clearer????????????


> Now, first of all is there any dispute about his analysis,

no.

 
> or the conclusions drawn from the analysis, and if so why?  

YES!!!!  for the above reasons.

> The main reason to be given is that the other GM's are jealous.

NO, i never *ACCUSED* anybody of jealousy. i simply asked if that was
the reason. since they are not stupid, they must have known that the
conditions of the match would affect play...yet they still *IGNORE*
these facts.

bitterness and jealousy were the only things i could think of. if
there was A DIFFERENT reason that they would ignore facts before
bashing bobby....i'm all ears. let me know. 

> What evidence is there for this?  

The reason i thought this was outlined in the first few posts of
TO GM/IM AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LIFE...before it turned into a flame
war blood bath.

but i'm not posting there anymore because even by my standards it's
getting pretty viscious.

> Or evidence that refutes this?

I can't think of anything to refute my claims or observations. that
was sort of the idea behind my post...i want to know if the bobby
basheres would care to refute it.
 
> 
> BTW an argument that goes :
>     1)  They are unfairly criticizing Fischer bcause they are jealous.

no, it goes like this....

      1) You are unfairly criticizing the chess playing ability of bobby
         fischer (and borris spassky too...but i don't really care about
         that). is it because you are jealous and bitter at his 
         accomplishments???




>     2)  How do I know they're jealous?  Because they're unfairly criticizing
>         Fischer

no, i don't *KNOW* anybody is jealous or bitter...that's why i asked
them if that was the reason. the second question would more appropriately
read....

      2)  How do i know they are unfairly criticizing bobby???? because
          they are taking his moves out of context of the match
          conditions.


> 
> becomes valid only if other corroborating evidence supports it.

i've done so in the first part of the post....and in about a zillion
other posts.

  
> Let's have clear logical arguments here instead of messages with lots
> of !!!^&^%#&^%&!!!!  characters.

hey, my posts ARE logical and don't use any foul language and are 
generally civil....almost.
 
> 
> BTW on a chess note-- what's the current analysis on 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb
> 3. a3 bxa 4. Bxa3 ?

well, my opionion is that it stinks...because it's too passive. you're
mistake is NOT  4. Bxa3? but actually back three moves earlier...

   1. e4 ??

(the only reason it is not given 3 question marks is because bobby fischer
 has found some success with this continuation)

correct would be...

  1. g4 !!!

with almost a virtual forced win for white...assuming he doesn't get
overconfident and hand back his winning advantage.

 
> 
>                                                  William
>  
> 
> 


don wedding