Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: I will accept DMC's challenge!!
From: pmbarlow@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Pete Barlow... 'The Candy Guru')
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:49:39 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1ia0a1INN1p2@meaddata.meaddata.com>, kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.112801.794@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> |> In article <1i5r59INNn0u@meaddata.meaddata.com>, kcy@meaddata.com (Cheong Yu) writes:
> |> > 
> |> > [Discussion about offer to play DMC deleted]
> |> >
> |> > So how about it, DMC?  I would save you a plane ticket because I would
> |> > be willing to drive to Toledo.  Do you want to play?
> |> 
> |> Sure, but there has to be a down side to SOMEONE! Christ, these people have
> |> been crying to find out my skills for a long time, as if somehow my skills on
> |> the chessboard would influence the validity of my posts here. (No one has yet
> |> explained the reasoning behind that view, but the (il)logic still runs
> |> rampant.)
> 
> I didn't follow every article on the relevant threads, but I thought
> the intention was to show your knowledge about the game of chess.  I
> thought the discussion was about whether GM Benjamin's article about
> Fischer's playing ability was accurate and unbiased.  I don't believe
> I have the chess abilities to find inaccuracies in Benjamin's
> analysis, so I can't judge whether his article was biased or unbiased.

Same opinion  here.

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

Yes, but I don't think this was the exact point that DMC was arguing.

[hair match challenge deleted]
> I'm not sure why Bruce would have to be involved in this challenge.  I
> thought the match was supposed to be against you and me.  My offer was
> to play a three-game match, and the winner will post the games here
> with accompanying analysis, annotations, etc.  The games can be
> critiqued by the rest of the world, so that we can all discuss chess.
> I think Bruce has put you in his kill file, or has made a New Year's
> resolution to not follow-up to your posts.  If I were him, I wouldn't
> wager on a Class B player.  Heck, I surely wouldn't wager my own hair
> on my chess ability.  :-)

Neither would I.  I've seen your hair, Cheong...  :-)

> ** Obligatory chess discussion begins *

Finally...

> After re-reading my post, I'm sorry if I may have mislead some people
> with the above paragraph about computers being weak at postal chess.
> Back to my original statement: what I meant to say was that computers
> are at the greatest *disadvantage* when playing humans at postal chess
> time limits.  The computers will continue to get stronger if given
> more time, but the humans can make better use of the extra time, so
> the gap between the human and the computer becomes greater in the
> human's favor.  I have no specific cited material to back this up, but
> it is generally accepted among the computer chess community.

I'm kinda glad I'm  not big on computer chess...

> |> Why would I analyze a game? My overall philosophy is you won or you lost, and
> |> you learn from your own mistakes, not those of others.

Funny... that sounds like ME!  That's really scary.

> In my opinion, "a win is a win" philosophy only applies to sports and
> other trivial games. :-) Chess is a combination of science, sport, and
> art.  Reducing chess to wins and losses would be reducing it to "99%
> mathematics".  And how would someone learn from their own mistakes if
> they don't have someone point them out to them?
> Besides, if someone analyzed a game, then another can better judge the
> abilities of the analyzer.  For example, I can claim that a move I
> made was extremely strong, but then someone can point out that it was
> a blunder because I left my Queen unprotected.  I would have to either
> agree that it was a blunder or try to convince him that it was really
> a sacrifice (yeah, that's the ticket).

Uh... yeah... sure.

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

Simple.  Get smarter than Einstein, then work on it.

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

Well, if it's an arbiter you're looking for, then I'll do it.  I mean... *I*
think I'm impartial...

> Cheong
> 
> [P.S. I hope I only include one copy of my .signature this time.]

Relax, you did...

TCG, pb... who's kinda glad he deleted his .sig files as well...
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess