From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DO
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:52:59 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec22.113838.14741@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru') writes:

(really good posts deleted to save space)

>> Another possibility is that Fischer played poorly because he knew he was going
>> to win no matter what. I have heard speculation on this group that the match
>> was fixed, with both participants merely doing it fo rthe money with the
>> outcome known in advance.
> 
> Ah, but that's speculation there.  Although it IS a possibility, I don't think
> this was the case at all.  Whether or not the match was fixed is one thing, and
> that's another discussion for another time... but I don't think Fischer would
> have played badly knowing that he would win anyway.  Closer to the truth is
> probably that 20 years of inactivity had done its work on Fischer, and it
> showed.  And before you ask, no, I didn't analyse the games in question, but I
> go solely on the opinion of those that post here, and that of those at my chess
> club.  So I'm not a great judge of how well Fischer played.

Nor do I. It is too great a change of charcter on both their parts, and we have
no evidence of it. Might be true, but highly unlikely.

> 
>> Gee bucko...why didn't you attacke THOSE speculative posts???
> 
> I'll let him answer that... I didn't because I've been examing and on holiday
> for the last 10 days.
> 
>>> Arguing about someone's "motives" for a series of moves is
>>> non-verifiable and therefore MM.  Analysis of the quality of a series
>>> of chess moves is largely independently verifiable by a non-biased
>>> machine and is therefore not MM at all.  The quality of the games,
>>> judged by human and non-human alike, has simply not been up to where
>>> Fischer was in 1972, which is why people have concluded that he is not
>>> (yet) playing as well as he did then. 
>> 
>> You are now parroting what benjamin said in his essay. Please cite these
>> moves and compare them to the moves of the prior tournament, and please,
>> since Benjamin has not done so, compare the WHOLE tournaments, and not
>> just a few selected plays. (Wouldn't want to give examples out of context,
>> would you?)
> 
> Given, I haven't even read Benjamin's essay... but how can you flame an
> opinion?  He's certainly entitled to one, even if its the wrong one according
> to you...
> 
> And as far as comparing his last two appearances.... actually, all comparison
> will be defied, seeing as how the two appearances are both against the same
> player, and are separated by 20 years.  But perhaps you can go by performances. 
> In 21 games 20 years ago, Spassky only managed 2 points.  In 30 games 2 months
> ago, Spassky managed 5 points.  Given, had the number of games been the same,
> the two performances would be a little easier to compare.  But then consider
> that Spassky had already scored 4 points by the end of the 21st game in F-S II. 
> That indicates one of three things:
> a) Spassky got better.
> b) Fischer got worse.
> c) Neither.  it's just the Law of Averages at work again.
> 
> My personal preference is (c).  His is (b).  Yours, DMC, I would guess to be
> close but not exactly (c)... but then that's just a guess.

I could go along with (c). However, if there were a choice

d) Not enough data to tell.

That's the one I would pick.

> 
>>> 					If you want to say that he's not
>>> playing well as a part of his match strategy, then prove it (or at
>>> least advance a convincing argument).
>> 
>> Umm...I don't believe I ever said he wasn't playing well. I don't believe I
>> have ever commented as to whether I felt Fischer played better then, or now.
>> Oh sure, lots of people like yourselves have tried to claim I was arguing one
>> way or the other...makes it easier to deal with when you are doing the
>> attacking.
> 
> It'd be an interesting comment, one way or the other, but as you so fondly
> point out from time to time, it's not really all that relevant.

Thank you. Thank you for being the first poster on the group to listen to what
I have beeen repeatedly saying. 

> 
>> However, plainly stated, my view is this:
>> 
>> I do not feel that the GMs who have attacked Fischer's skills have given more
>> than anecdotal examples. They have taken MUCH out of context, and in light of
>> their admitted bias, I question their judgment for lack of proof.
>> I have posited speculation which has built upon the specualtion of others, but
>> that has nothing to do with the issues raised here.
> 
> I'm not going to spend time defending a GM's opinions... basically because I
> know I can't do it.  But then you hit the lack of proof thing.  My assumption
> is that these people have an enormous backlog of chess games.  They probably
> have all the Informants on CD-ROM.  And they probably assume that the
> ultra-serious player has SOMETHING on Fischer's past.  Most articles offering
> analysis are geared toward those who intend to learn from the games therein. 
> When you combine the two, really, all you have to do is say, "This play is not
> as brilliant as the play he had at Linares 1968."  From there, it lies with the
> player, to go find all of Fischer's games from Linares '68.  At that point, you
> can play over both sets of games and form your own opinions... just as Joel
> Benjamin has done.

Yes, there is something to that. However, the primary problem with it is too
many people do not do a comparative analysis of the matches. Either due to time
or lack of knowledge of the game. If Benjamin's words were being broadcast to
only critics of his own level or above, then this would be fine. That would be
similar to publishin findings in a journal which is slated for limited
distribution to othr professionals.

However, Benjamin's article was not blessed with such limited scope.

His article was read by those of far less expertiese, and the brings up a
situation which is very similar to:

1. A scientist does an study of the relationship between heart-disease and
alcohol consumption.

2. The scientist has worked with alcohol/herat disease material in the past,
and thus knows pitfalls to avoid which are commmon to such studies. As an
expert, he then follows the possibly reasonable path of using a smaller 
than normal sample size.

3. His study confrms that here is a slight correlation between limited acohol
consumption and a lower chance of heart disease.

(So far, so good)

4. Then, instead of sending the data to other experts for their critiques, and
their comments (i.e. a scholarly journal where three of your blood enemies sit
on the review panel) he publishes it directly in Good Health magazine,
whereupon the media picks it up and places it on the AP wire service.

Now we have problems. The material is being gobbled up by people who have not
studied the same data and also are experts of his (her) caliber. At this point,
his work is little more than pop-science as his words are reaching people who
have neither the ability nor resources to critique his analysis.

Many of them liked drinking anyway, and this is their justification to go out
and get plowed.

That is very similar to what has happened with Benjamin's article.


> 
>>> The real MM here is the unsubstantiated series of charges (made against
>>> people who are professionals in a game you appear to have at best a
>>> shaky understanding of) being bleated in message after flatulent,
>>> insubstantial message...
>> 
>> OK, since YOU have made a claim, that I have little understanding of the game,
>> I would like for you to explain WHY you feel, based upon my posts, that I have
>> a 'shaky understanding of' it.
>> And, as you vainly struggle for you proof, I want you to go back tthe above
>> paragraph you wrote, and relaize how sharply it applies to you. The minute you
>> stray from structured debate, you are going to take it on the chin every
>> time...
>> Your hobby is chess...my profession is arguing.
> 
> Relax.  Try not to take any of this personal.  It's just a group of people
> offering forth their opinions.  And, unlike the courtroom, they don't need
> proof to back up their opinions.

As long as people are mature about this, I don't take it personally. However,
when some sophmoric idiot uses phrases like "bleated" and "flatulent" to
describe my calls for better analysis, they deserve every sadistic
means I have at my disposal to shame them into either shaping up or wandering
back into their hole.

> 
> Whether or not I agree with everything that you or anyone else has said,
> though, is my business and mine alone.
> 
>>>> Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game.
>>> 
>>> That may be true for the way *you* play chess. Fischer, to judge by
>>> direct quotes and his published writings, would say just the opposite.
>> 
>> Once more, SO? Why would any self-sufficient adult base his philosophy of
>> ANYTHING on what another says. Do you feel I should modify my views to fit
>> those of Fischer???
> 
> Uh, no.  The Earth has one psychotic chess player, it doesn't need another.  As
> for the reducing chess to math part... not 99%... 50%, maybe.
> 
>> And, if so, who dictates your opinions?
> 
> Mostly, I do.  But I react to what I see and hear.  And, though I'm not one to
> follow trends, I generally agree with everything everyone says here, basically
> becuase I don't understand much of it, and it sounds just fine to me anyway. 
> My priorities do not involve playing a good game of chess anymore.
> 

Then your grasp of reality is probably doing just fine...

> 
> Just my $0.02...
> 
> TCG, pb.