From: kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:40:27 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kcy@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: monster.meaddata.com

[discussion about the intent of the challenge match deleted]

dmc> Um, yes and no. My intent was to prove to one Doubting Thomas that his
dmc> insistance I could not play was flat out wrong.

dmc> As to Benjamins article, and my critique of it, that can be
dmc> summed up with:

dmc> 1. Benjamin did not perform ENOUGH analysis
dmc> 2. There was not enough material for him to claim Fischer had slipped
dmc> 3. His admitted bias against Fischer cast more doubt into its validity.

dmc> Those positions are what got everybody here riled.

I would agree that your points as stated above are valid arguments and
you have every right to those opinions.  However, I believe that the
method you used to point them out is "what got everybody here riled".
"You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar" argument applied
here.

BTW, as you might have noticed by now, *a lot* of GM's are stating
that Fischer is not as strong as he was 20 years.  Several IM's and
GM's came to the same conclusion (albeit from the same "limited"
data), though you can argue that the opinions were not arrived at
independently. Even GM Larry Evans (who people have said is biased in
favor of Fischer) stated it in the most recent Chess Life (Feb 93).

kcy> In my opinion, if another person cannot find inaccuracies or errors of
kcy> omission in Benjamin's analysis, then I think that person should not
kcy> claim that the article was biased (or unbiased.)  So if I didn't even
kcy> know how the pieces moved, I would hardly be fitting to judge a GM's
kcy> analysis.

dmc> Cheong, you sell yourself short, and give too much weight to
dmc> Benjamin's rank.  Everytime that a doctor is found liable for
dmc> malpractice, a jury of people who know nothing about medicine pass
dmc> judgment on his work. You don't have to know how to how to remove a
dmc> spleen to know when instructons in a Acme do-it-yourself spleen
dmc> removal kit are poorly written.

I'm not a lawyer (but I do watch LA Law :-), so you are more
knowledgable in this area than me.  But then tell me this:

1) Why does the jury listen to "expert witnesses"?  How do I know that
the "Acme do-it-yourself kit" instructions are poorly written if it
contained Latin mumble-jumble.  A lot of GM's games look like
mumble-jumble to me, so I try to find other GM's comments to confirm
or deny the first GM's assertions.

2) Why do lawyers point out the "credibility" or whatever of the
witness?  I agree that, if GM Benjamin has shown bias in the past, he
is more likely to show bias again.  But what about a person trying to
pass off as being knowledgable in an area (say computer checkers :-))
but is really not knowledgable?  What about his credibility?  :-)

dmc> After all, do you need to know how to repair a photocopier to be able
dmc> to tell when the copier repairman is not doing the job right?

I agree with you here somewhat.  Do you know what is the "good result"
of a high-quality copier?  Probably.  But do you know how to identify
the "good result" of a high-quality chess game?  To you, a win is good
enough, to most IM and GM, that's not enough. "Winning ugly" doesn't
cut the mustard.  High school players can "win ugly".

[discussion of the "mohawk wager", computer chess, computer checkers,
and other stuff deleted]

kcy> In my opinion, "a win is a win" philosophy only applies to sports and
kcy> other trivial games. :-) Chess is a combination of science, sport, and
kcy> art.  Reducing chess to wins and losses would be reducing it to "99%
kcy> mathematics".  And how would someone learn from their own mistakes if
kcy> they don't have someone point them out to them?

dmc> Yes, you learn from your OWN mistakes, and possibly those of others.

I have lost games where I had no idea what the losing move was, until
someone else pointed it out to me.  At my skill level, I'm weak at
identifying positional advantages and disadvantages, so I need higher
rated players to point them out to me.  That's how good players
improve more quickly.

dmc> I guess for me the 'art' of it is like Zen. Do it enough times and let the
dmc> brain worry about the work.

Most tournament players do agree that to improve at chess quickly, you
simply play a lot of chess, not study from books.  However, those same
players would say that they learn more from the post mortem analysis,
especially their losses, than anything else.

kcy> Besides, if someone analyzed a game, then another can better judge the
kcy> abilities of the analyzer.  For example, I can claim that a move I
kcy> made was extremely strong, but then someone can point out that it was
kcy> a blunder because I left my Queen unprotected.  I would have to either
kcy> agree that it was a blunder or try to convince him that it was really
kcy> a sacrifice (yeah, that's the ticket).

dmc> If you won, it was a gambit/sacrifice. If you lost, it was a blunder.

Most *good* chessplayers would disagree with this statement.  A
blunder is still going to be given a ? or ?? in the annotations,
regardless whether the opponent cashes in on the mistake.  You might
convince people that the blunder was really a swindle (hoping your
opponent plays an inferior move) or at best, an unsound sacrifice, but
*good* players don't fall for such tactics.

[stuff deleted]

kcy> I'm not quite convinced that a GM's analysis must be flawed because he
kcy> is human, and how that would translates into bias.  If a GM's analysis
kcy> if flawed, how can I prove it?  I don't even have the chess abilities
kcy> to find any inaccuracies or omissions in his analysis.  Is Einstein's
kcy> notion of physics flawed because he is human?  If they were flawed,
kcy> how can I show it?

dmc> By showing it reduces down to a division by zero.

dmc> Which is prohibited.

dmc> You don't have to be an architect to know building made out of stone is
dmc> probably better than one made out of straw...

I couldn't agree more.  But since this is all I can do, and I can't
show his equations do reduce to division by zero, I have no grounds to
claim his analysis is flawed.

kcy> So, DMC, are we going to play a three-game match?  The winner gets to
kcy> post the games with accompanying analysis for everyone to scrutinize.
kcy> I guess the loser can get to post counter-analysis, or try to show
kcy> that the analysis is biased or unbiased. :-)

dmc> The problem is that I have nothing to gain, and possible losses if
dmc> there is no wager.

dmc> If I lose horribly, Harper, and all of the other flunkies, get to jump
dmc> up and say, "See, I know he couldn't play chess. Everything he said is
dmc> wrong!!!"

If you lost and the analysis showed that you had little knowledge at
playing the game, then it only shows that you don't have the chess
abilities to find faults in a GM's analysis.  (Of course, your
creditibility would go down too).

dmc> If I win big time, all of the flunkies get to say, "Oh. Look at THIS
dmc> move! What a horrible move! Proves he doesn't know what he was talking
dmc> about!!!"

If you won and the analysis showed that you had a tremendous knowledge
of the game, then your credibility goes up, and then you can counter
any claims that your moves were inferior by defending your moves with
*the proper analysis*. I don't understand why you put so little weight
on analysis.

I can beat weaker players with inferior moves, but I can't beat
Experts and Masters with the style "I'll wait until my opponent makes
the first mistake", because I can't even see their subtle mistakes and
they can always see mine.  My analysis would be something like "I
didn't know what hit me.  I ran out of good defensive moves, and he
started winning material." 

Anyways, I'm beginning to beat a dead horse.  Since your other post
said you would be leaving r.g.c., I'm going to let the thread die and
continue this in e-mail, if you want.

If you still want to play (in person or via e-mail), just send me
e-mail.

-- 
Cheong Yu             |                        |        (513) 865-7048
Mead Data Central     |                        |   Fax: (513) 865-1755
P.O. Box 933          |                        |      kcy@meaddata.com
Dayton, Ohio  45401   |                        |    uunet!meaddata!kcy
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess