From: pope@walnut.kpc.com (John Pope)
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
	<1992Dec22.015033.596@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:18:46 GMT

>   Incorrect. Pure specualtion at its worst is to not speculate at all.

Uninformed speculation *is* worse than none at all, as you have proved
on r.g.c these last few weeks.

>   I do not believe that I stated I felt that this was the reason FIscher had for
>   his moves. I pointed out one example of a possibility all of the glorious
>   grandmasters have ignored. 

I take it that since you didn't respond to my point that this
possibility would be at total variance with everything Fischer has
ever thought and said about his philosophy, then we can regard it as
discarded? Good.

>   Another possibility is that Fischer pllayed moves which a computer would see as
>   weak because Fischer knew his opponent well enough to know that playing such a
>   move would be a strong move--DUE TO HIS OPPONENTS WEAKNESSES.
>
>   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.
>
>   Gee bucko...why didn't you attacke THOSE speculative posts???

Uh, for the obvious reason that you didn't mention them in your post,
and I don't put words into other people's mouths. But now that you
have mentioned them, I will note that they are just as silly as your
previously mentioned possibility, and for the same reason - that
simply isn't the way Fischer approaches chess (as judged by what he
has actually said and done over the course of his whole career). If
you dispute that last statement, then as I said before the burden of
proof is on YOU, not on a bunch of Grandmasters who play the game for
a living.

>   > 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
>   
>   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. 

You flatter yourself if you think I would bother regurgitating any,
let alone all, of the published analysis on the match for you. Go read
it yourself. If you cannot understand the analysis, then ask questions
here - that way we can focus on some actual chess. You *are* interested
in the truth of the matter *aren't* you?

>   (Wouldn't want to give examples out of context, would you?)

No. Incidentally, positing the question as if I *had* gone out of
context and leaving yourself a convenient denial is sophomoric at
best.

>    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.

Wrong. They have analyzed the *games*, move by move, and found many
mistakes. Where you think anecdotal evidence comes in is a complete
mystery. If you claim that their analysis of the moves is faulty
because of bias, then once again the burden of proof is on YOU - let's
see some analysis!

>   > 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.

Your ignorance of fundamental terms gives you away immediately -
Fischer and Spassky played a "match", not a "tournament", a game
consists of "moves", not "plays".

>   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...

Eh? Well, it does seem that embarking on a empty counter-attack when
you cannot reply to the essence of the opponent's argument is your
trademark.

>   Your hobby is chess...my profession is arguing.

Based on your tenous grasp of dialectic, invective, and spelling, I
strongly advise... ahh, never mind...

>    >> 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???

Your assertion (which incidentally is more proof that you haven't a
clue about chess) was made in the context of explaining a possible
reason for Fischer's occasional substandard play.

>  And, if so, who dictates your opinions?

Sigh, another swing and a miss. This is getting boring - I mean,
haven't you heard that there is more to formulating an argument than
merely trying one feeble attack after another, even if it has no
connection with anything previously said.

Ekkhh. Enough bandwidth on this - if you want to reply, do so by
email. Or better yet, don't.

--
John Pope
pope@kpc.com
Kubota Pacific Computers, Inc.
(408) 987-3362
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess