From: carabalo@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David G. Caraballo)
Subject: Re: Consensus?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:13:02 GMT

In article <EfBgDk70BwxK9DyFpN@transarc.com> Ron_Kownacki@transarc.com
 writes:
>I haven't had time to read this group much lately, so I'm just posting 
>to see if there has been any net consensus on the following issues:

Yikes!  So many controversial questions!

>  - Do people feel that Bobby is still the best?

     Some people do; most people (at least on rgc) do not; many people
     are reserving judgement.  Will he ever play again?

>  - Independently of the first question, do the rgc readers still feel
>    that he's the champion, as he claims?

     Most do not.  Fischer no longer has his FIDE title as champion--
     this statement is simple fact-- but Fischer sees himself as
     "World Champion" independent of any organization.  He has crowned
     himself King, and few people on this group would deny that he is
     champion in his own mind.  Kasparov is the FIDE "champ", but Garry
     has not yet proven himself worthy of the "Fischer title".  :-)

>  - Do people feel that his playing in Yugoslavia was justified, or not?

     Fischer believes it was justified, so do other people.  Many people
     do not.  There has been quite a war about this issue on rgc.  
     "justified" is such a loaded word.  Fischer does what he wants,
     period, regardless of "justification".  

>  - Is the answer different now that he's faced with a criminal suit?
   
     I doubt it.

>  - Do people feel that the quality of the match was high, say 2700+?

     Evaluations of the level of play do not agree.  Some people suggest
     mid 2600's, while others say that the play was at IM level.  In 
     both cases, a decline in Fischer's playing strength is suggested.
     I have not seen anyone on this group (or in any article) claim the
     play was at 2700 level.  The most generous estimates I've seen were
     in the mid 2600's.  In all fairness, Fischer had to work off some
     rust.  Even Kasparov acknowledged publicly that Fischer can play 
     better after more practice.

>And by the way, what was the outcome of the solvability issue? 

The thread from Hell returns!  The outcome was that the answer depends 
on your definition of "solvable".  A very precise mathematical 
definition was given some time ago (I was one of the people who gave 
it) along with a proof that chess is "solvable" (according to that 
definition).  The definition had to take into account certain rules 
governing the treatment of infinite games.  Noam Elkies posted an 
excellent article on that thread, but I cannot find it (or I'd send it 
via email).  Other precise definitions were given for which chess is 
not "solvable".  Send me a precise definition, and I'll send an 
answer for that definition.  The answer might even be correct.  :-)

>I had always thought it was solvable, but I guess I could be wrong.

There's nothing tricky, really.  Chess is solvable or not according 
to your choice of definitions, and the proofs are easy once you've 
chosen sufficiently precise definitions.

David G. Caraballo


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess