Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: A question for DMC
From: pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru')
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:00:52 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Dec22.012503.595@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <18767@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>> You also state:
>> "Reducing chess to math is to leave out 99% of the game".
>> While I have been involved in discussions on the net as to whether Fischer
>> played poorly in some games or deliberately employed risky plans in order to
>> try to win otherwise balanced positions (the (in)famous King walk in Game 8
>> is the best example), I find this remark somewhat astounding.  It is doubly
>> astounding considering that Fischer is one of the greatest seekers of "truth"
>> on the chess board in history - he would never make a move which thought
>> objectively inferior for psychological reasons, although he has made "risky"
>> moves which he assessed as playable (rightly or wrongly) in order to try to
>> win (taking the h Pawn in the first game of the 1972 match is a good
>> example).
> 
> When I summed up my views on the game, I stated my views. Unlike others on this
> board, I do not let outside opinions, even those of Fischer, dictate what I
> will feel.
> You or Fischer seek the 'truth' of chess. I seek the truth of conflict. My
> opinion is that while the math of chess positions may be graphed, playing the
> game against a human is always a crap shot. (admittedly, a good player has
> loaded dice when playing a poorer player...)

Something I agree with you on.  There are no guarantees of a win when playing
another human opponent.  An E player stands a chance of beating a GM.  Granted,
it won't happen that often... but it CAN happen.

>> So my question is simply whether you have played tournament chess and have a
>> rating, or actually play chess at all.
> 
> I'll answer that if you can tell me what difference my tournament play matters
> in the views I present. And, it must be a reasonably valid argument/view you
> make.

Simple enough.  When you want to ask if 1. a4 is a good move, who would you
ask, the local expert who's been playing chess for 20 years, or the street
urchin who would sooner eat one of his pawns than push it and knows nothing
about the game?

If you know nothing about the game in either the match or the tournament sense,
how can we even begin to listen to you?  That's the point I think he's trying
to make.

> 					The view that there is little
>> objective truth is chess is very unusual, and not knowing about the first K-K
>> match has me wondering whether you play chess or are just discussing all this
>> abstractly.
> 
> I did not in any way, shape, or form discuss the K-K matches when I was
> referring to Fischer's playing to wear down his opponent. I find it difficult
> to believe you do not know the histroy of the Fischer tournament way back
> when...

Just to be on the safe side, I know nothing about the 1st K-K match, except
that Kasparov won it, and I know very little about Fischer's tournament
history, except that he won 90% of his games.

> DMC

Hey, I'm just being calm about all this.  Don't take any of this personal.

TCG, pb.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess