"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:

I'm sorry - what Kasparov is saying is the direct opposite of generic
comment, and latter-day analysis. He says there are some things to do
against specific opponents, and even at certain times. I would say that
history sides with Kasparov's opinion here,


Has "history" even had time to "side" with Kasparov yet?

I mean, what he says about other players seems pretty true to me.

I think not. IMO, GM Kasparov has written more hooey
than any other chess writer I know of, and that includes
the world's foremost authority on everything!

Outside of chess its different no? If you met GK at a party talking with our
President, would you tease thenm?

"Hey Guys, tell us again about the dinosaurs and also what happened to
the Middle Ages"

It boils down to a given writer's predisposition. Take a
writer like GM Evans, and the verdict is in before the case
comes to trial: N-h5 was a brilliant psychological "move".

Okay so far...

But take, say, Rybka, and N-h5 might be labeled as any
of the following, depending entirely upon preset thresholds
decided by its creator:

suboptimal
somewhat inferior
inferior
a mistake
a weak move
(I already "took back" my choice of the term "blunder",
because of the common notion that this implies a piece-
hanger level of mistake.)

What is clear is that it as certainly not the best move.

Yeah, I think you are right! But as GK himself says, 'best move' does not
mean 1st theoretical move. But we don't have to reflect opinions of be world
champions to discuss this. As a chess player you find yourself in a
10-minute game 2 pawns down and you got 2.5 minutes and opponent has 4.
'Best' move gives you a pawn back in half a dozen moves time, but this is
not enough to even hold the game, longterm, and in capturing the pawn you
give up whatever initiatie you have, and most importantly, tick tick tick,
looks like you will lose on time.

So you complicate - you play the most awkward bloody moves you can find,
even if it gives up another pawn.

Added to that you may be in a 'must-win' situation in a whole series of
games, and playing any 'best' move doesn't promise you much.


My games themselves are a powerful testament to my
belief in the idea of playing the opponent, as well as the
board. But you should keep in mind the famous quote
of GM Fischer in which he strongly stated the opposite
position as being his own. In view of this, it seems that
writers like GM Evans (among others) are missing the
self-contradiction in claiming GM Fischer's "suboptimal"
moves were deliberately chosen for psychological
purposes, as if to say he couldn't fathom the position
on the board and had to resort to psycho-guesswork in
order to effect a win. This may well apply to *many* of
my games, but GM Fischer's?

My opinion is that these are very fair observations! One problem always in
asking people what's going on for them in chess, is not that they will lie,
but misrepresent themselves by telling you what you will best understand.
This may not nearly reflect what is actually happening in chess. As to
Fischer, I don't know how 'scientific' he was actually. Did he really just
'play the board' and not the opponent? Whatever he said he did, I would be
interested in other opinion than just his own.

Since what you raise are really psychological questions, we should even ask
how much Fischer's was aware of his own motivations both conscious and
unconscious? Most people claim an almost ridiculous amount of conscious
control of what they do - and this is mere rationalisation combined with a
bit of ego inflation.

But its hard to square such statments like[paraphrases] 'the truth lies in
the pawns' when you also say that you 'like to crush other people's egos'.

PI

Again, this brouhaha over N-h5 merely shows how
RF wanted desperately to kill his brother and carry his
mother, as explained by Dr. Jeckyl in his book on the
match. Dr. Jung can explain everything, but he was
attacked last night by a creature closely resembling a
wolf/man, and for some reason he won't stop howling
at the moon. So we are left in the dark, but for the
unquestionable objectivity of Dr. Rybka -- the famous
Russian chess scientist.

-- Ct. Frankenstein

wrote:
help bot wrote:
wrote:

Isn't the line that calls 11...Nh5 into question something like 12.Bxh5
gh 13.a4 Ne5 14.Nd1 followed by Ne3? I think the idea was Gligoric's:
check his CL Game of the Month column for 1973 or 1974--should be
mentioned there.

This sounds exactly like the analysis I was talking
about, which TK believes does not exist unless and
until it is *quoted* by someone.

For once, my memory was good: Kasparov talks about this idea at
length--originated by Ljubojevic, not Fischer--and briefly discusses
this position in the notes to Petrosian-Rashkovsky, USSR ch 1976 (MGP3
119-22).


Um, if your memory is so good, how come you
mistook GM Gligoric (top quote) for GM Ljubojevic
(bottom quote)? Or did you mean that the N-h5
move itself was originated by GM Ljubojevic?

[And if the move N-h5 was first played by him,
no one will believe it until you *quote* somebody
saying it was!]

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

I mean, what he says about other players seems pretty true to me.

Can you give any examples? I believe GM Kasparov
reigned-in some of his bitter enmity toward Karpov in
*one* recent book because of contractual obligation,
but otherwise he seems to be a luny ranter akin to GM
Fischer. If I were assigned the task of finding self-
contradictory statements by any famous player, GK
would suffice to write a very long essay, or perhaps even
a book.


I think not. IMO, GM Kasparov has written more hooey
than any other chess writer I know of, and that includes
the world's foremost authority on everything!

Outside of chess its different no? If you met GK at a party talking with our
President, would you tease thenm?


No. I would force my way past all the Secret Service
agents, and then introduce myself as Bill Gates, the
famous billionaire. Soon they would both be asking me
for investment advice, and I would explain that Microsoft
is going under on account of an options backdating
scandal, and competition from Apple and the Chinese.
(You have to admit, it makes for a good story.)


"Hey Guys, tell us again about the dinosaurs and also what happened to
the Middle Ages"


My father-in-law goes bonkers every time dinosaurs
are mentioned on TV. He can't handle the talk about
how many millions of years old their bones are, and so
forth, because he believes the world was created (in
just six days, I think) only 5,000 years ago.
What do GK and GWB say about dinosaurs?



What is clear is that it as certainly not the best move.

Yeah, I think you are right! But as GK himself says, 'best move' does not
mean 1st theoretical move. But we don't have to reflect opinions of be world
champions to discuss this. As a chess player you find yourself in a
10-minute game 2 pawns down and you got 2.5 minutes and opponent has 4.
'Best' move gives you a pawn back in half a dozen moves time, but this is
not enough to even hold the game, longterm, and in capturing the pawn you
give up whatever initiatie you have, and most importantly, tick tick tick,
looks like you will lose on time.

So you complicate - you play the most awkward bloody moves you can find,
even if it gives up another pawn.

You seem to have forgotten something: these two
(GMs Spassky and Fischer) were still in the opening!
Assumming they knew anything at all, there could
not have been time pressure, or any need to complicate,
just remember (or find) and play strong moves.

Added to that you may be in a 'must-win' situation in a whole series of
games, and playing any 'best' move doesn't promise you much.

Homework. That's what the world champions (and
their challengers) do before every game. GM Fischer's
"strategy" may have entailed adding the Benoni to the
long list of things GM Spassky's team had to worry about.


My games themselves are a powerful testament to my
belief in the idea of playing the opponent, as well as the
board. But you should keep in mind the famous quote
of GM Fischer in which he strongly stated the opposite
position as being his own. In view of this, it seems that
writers like GM Evans (among others) are missing the
self-contradiction in claiming GM Fischer's "suboptimal"
moves were deliberately chosen for psychological
purposes, as if to say he couldn't fathom the position
on the board and had to resort to psycho-guesswork in
order to effect a win. This may well apply to *many* of
my games, but GM Fischer's?

My opinion is that these are very fair observations! One problem always in
asking people what's going on for them in chess, is not that they will lie,
but misrepresent themselves by telling you what you will best understand.
This may not nearly reflect what is actually happening in chess. As to
Fischer, I don't know how 'scientific' he was actually. Did he really just
'play the board' and not the opponent? Whatever he said he did, I would be
interested in other opinion than just his own.


My opinion is that he lied, and that he in fact played the
opponent as well as the board. He may have *wished* he
could play as a robot might, but his results tell a different
story. Only a cold, unfeeling automaton can play just the
board. I'm refering of course to Louis Blair. ;D


Since what you raise are really psychological questions, we should even ask
how much Fischer's was aware of his own motivations both conscious and
unconscious? Most people claim an almost ridiculous amount of conscious
control of what they do - and this is mere rationalisation combined with a
bit of ego inflation.


We have already determined that, subconciously, GM
Fischer wanted to carve his father (whoever that may be)
into little pieces, and ferry his Mother. (Or was that harry?)


But its hard to square such statments like[paraphrases] 'the truth lies in
the pawns' when you also say that you 'like to crush other people's egos'.


Bingo! That quote had escaped me, but it is, I believe,
the quintessential refutation of his other quote. A bust.

-- help bot

Timman-Ljubo, Amsterdam 72

Gligoric-Kavalek, Skopje Ol 72

Gligoric-Taimanov, Leningrad Izt 73

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

I mean, what he says about other players seems pretty true to me.

Can you give any examples? I believe GM Kasparov
reigned-in some of his bitter enmity toward Karpov in
*one* recent book because of contractual obligation,
but otherwise he seems to be a luny ranter akin to GM
Fischer.

I hadn't gained that impression of him about chess players - in fact, I
think he is very astute from reading his column in NiC. Dunno if you read
that, or if he speaks very differently elsewhere. He was good recently on
both an individual player, Morozevich, and also what happens to players to
cause them to draw so much, or to ignore that, and go for it
hell-for-leather and wished he was still on the scene to play such tigers!.

These days, he said, "we have an environment principly of patronage rather
than sponsorship."

If I were assigned the task of finding self-
contradictory statements by any famous player, GK
would suffice to write a very long essay, or perhaps even
a book.

My Great Reservations

------
Outside of chess its different no? If you met GK at a party talking with
our
President, would you tease thenm?


No. I would force my way past all the Secret Service
agents, and then introduce myself as Bill Gates, the
famous billionaire. Soon they would both be asking me
for investment advice, and I would explain that Microsoft
is going under on account of an options backdating
scandal, and competition from Apple and the Chinese.
(You have to admit, it makes for a good story.)

Laugh - there was a net-rumour going around a few years ago that Microsoft
had bought the Catholic Church, the Pope made head of Religious Software
Division, and so on - it was such a prevalent rumour that Microsoft had to
deny it ))

"Hey Guys, tell us again about the dinosaurs and also what happened
to
the Middle Ages"


My father-in-law goes bonkers every time dinosaurs
are mentioned on TV. He can't handle the talk about
how many millions of years old their bones are, and so
forth, because he believes the world was created (in
just six days, I think) only 5,000 years ago.

What do GK and GWB say about dinosaurs?

GK is okay about them, he just doesn't beleive in the middle-ages from about
500-1500bc, which he thinks is a Putin-plot, but GWB thinks dinosaurs were
finger-food for massive aliens who liked to stop off here for picnics.

Whatever weird things you have ever thought, GWB was there first! His
doesn't intend to do a library like a normal president, he is going to do a
theme park. I'm surprised he doesn't team up with Kirsan, they'd have a
ball.

What is clear is that it as certainly not the best move.

Yeah, I think you are right! But as GK himself says, 'best move' does not
mean 1st theoretical move. But we don't have to reflect opinions of be
world
champions to discuss this. As a chess player you find yourself in a
10-minute game 2 pawns down and you got 2.5 minutes and opponent has 4.
'Best' move gives you a pawn back in half a dozen moves time, but this is
not enough to even hold the game, longterm, and in capturing the pawn you
give up whatever initiatie you have, and most importantly, tick tick
tick,
looks like you will lose on time.

So you complicate - you play the most awkward bloody moves you can find,
even if it gives up another pawn.

You seem to have forgotten something: these two
(GMs Spassky and Fischer) were still in the opening!
Assumming they knew anything at all, there could
not have been time pressure, or any need to complicate,
just remember (or find) and play strong moves.

But amazing how many TNs were about at that time - you could read Adorjan or
Timman about it. Just a bit later Nigel Short used the Guicco Piano and
mashed everyone for 3 seasons - lines marked 'unclear outcome' are the ones
Adorjan and Timman says mean are interesting to play OTB, especially if you
have the wit to discern further than book reviewers

Added to that you may be in a 'must-win' situation in a whole series of
games, and playing any 'best' move doesn't promise you much.

Homework. That's what the world champions (and
their challengers) do before every game. GM Fischer's
"strategy" may have entailed adding the Benoni to the
long list of things GM Spassky's team had to worry about.

Larsen's baby, wasn't it? When I was a young, not even a dream of an IM, the
thing to do as black was to play the mod benoni, or the incredibly daring
Benko. These were just shocking [especially the benko] to players who
carried Mine Zyztym around under their arms - black cannot take the
initiative! they would exclaim in the post mortem, it is not correct for
balck to gambit! I must have missed some bad moves by you in the game! What
can you do but take the point and smile encouragingly they will stick to
their system schtick?

My games themselves are a powerful testament to my
belief in the idea of playing the opponent, as well as the
board. But you should keep in mind the famous quote
of GM Fischer in which he strongly stated the opposite
position as being his own. In view of this, it seems that
writers like GM Evans (among others) are missing the
self-contradiction in claiming GM Fischer's "suboptimal"
moves were deliberately chosen for psychological
purposes, as if to say he couldn't fathom the position
on the board and had to resort to psycho-guesswork in
order to effect a win. This may well apply to *many* of
my games, but GM Fischer's?

My opinion is that these are very fair observations! One problem always
in
asking people what's going on for them in chess, is not that they will
lie,
but misrepresent themselves by telling you what you will best understand.
This may not nearly reflect what is actually happening in chess. As to
Fischer, I don't know how 'scientific' he was actually. Did he really
just
'play the board' and not the opponent? Whatever he said he did, I would
be
interested in other opinion than just his own.


My opinion is that he lied, and that he in fact played the
opponent as well as the board.

He didn't lie, he just spoke untrue. He didn't know he was lying, since he
preferred a facile apparoach to explaining himself, and didn't have a
psychological insight in his silly head.

He may have *wished* he
could play as a robot might, but his results tell a different
story. Only a cold, unfeeling automaton can play just the
board. I'm refering of course to Louis Blair. ;D

I cannot allow this to pass without noticing it to be anti-personnel in
nature. How can you possibly criticise the author of the Blair Which[?]
Project for being unfeeling about mountains, even double peaks? I certainly
was not board.

Since what you raise are really psychological questions, we should even
ask
how much Fischer's was aware of his own motivations both conscious and
unconscious? Most people claim an almost ridiculous amount of conscious
control of what they do - and this is mere rationalisation combined with
a
bit of ego inflation.


We have already determined

speculated - butno worse than others!

that, subconciously, GM
Fischer wanted to carve his father (whoever that may be)
into little pieces, and ferry his Mother. (Or was that harry?)

Exactly! She was his 'safety', which is not a lot of good to a young man who
needed to get up mountians more. But I see we start to concur on far too
much, so I must disrespect you, and indeed your grandfather, who should have
hit you upside the head with the family bible far more often than he
actually did. What was the matter with him?

But its hard to square such statments like[paraphrases] 'the truth lies
in
the pawns' when you also say that you 'like to crush other people's
egos'.


Bingo! That quote had escaped me, but it is, I believe,
the quintessential refutation of his other quote. A bust.

As Herr Lorenz has pointed out, it is unusual, indeed irresponsible to point
to us mammals and indicate single points of motivation, in that they seem in
nature to all emerge from a complex, or a mix of factors - which these days
shrinks call an 'over-complexity' of motive, since they like to confuse
people by anti-intuitive terms.

Up your bot!

Phil Innes

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

GK is okay about them, he just doesn't beleive in the middle-ages from about
500-1500bc,

Them were not the Middle Ages, but the Dawn of Reason,
and the Dark Ages. The Middle was AD, which stands for
anno domini (year of the duck). I studied Greek, you know.


My opinion is that he lied, and that he in fact played the
opponent as well as the board.

He didn't lie, he just spoke untrue. He didn't know he was lying, since he
preferred a facile apparoach to explaining himself, and didn't have a
psychological insight in his silly head.

True. True. True. But he did know one thing,
ralating to psychology: he liked to watch 'em squirm!


As Herr Lorenz has pointed out, it is unusual, indeed irresponsible to point
to us mammals and indicate single points of motivation, in that they seem in
nature to all emerge from a complex, or a mix of factors - which these days
shrinks call an 'over-complexity' of motive, since they like to confuse
people by anti-intuitive terms.


I am for simplicity and directness. For example, in
my last brilliant game at GetClub:

1.Nf3 c5
2.d4 cd
3.Qxd4 Nf6
4.Bf4 d6! (I vant to fork you, dumkoff!)
5.Nc3?? e5! (I fork you, stupid, stupid program!)

Multiple motives? Perhaps. But the prize money
and the rating points are *nothing* when compared
to the fame and glory! (Huh? What fame? What
glory?)


FYI: I do not read NIC. This explains why you are
nearly an IM, while I am a 1300+. Held at Guantanamo
Bay, I was forced to read CL for ten years or more --
yet I am still better than most players at chess. It just
goes to show -- you can't keep a good bot down.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...

Chess One wrote:

GK is okay about them, he just doesn't beleive in the middle-ages from
about
500-1500bc,

Them were not the Middle Ages,

I too noticed my error, but was too slow to rush in and decare -Look! I
admit a mistake, and nobody made me! And shouldda wrote CE or current era.
But now you have [deliberately?] spoiled the entire effect.

but the Dawn of Reason,
and the Dark Ages.

The dark ages weren't nearly so bad as some aspects of what followed. Anglo
Saxons were our size, with better teeth and gums etc than we have today! [no
sugar] whereas afterwards people shrunk for the usual reasons of
overcrowding and poorer diet. In the middle ages there was not so much
heart-disease as we have today, because there was hardly enough meat to go
around, but people suuffered by getting too few proteins.

Oddly, meat eaters then [at the cusp of the two eras, about year 1000] eat
beef cattle which were 3/4 lean to fat, and today we eat from animals which
are 3/4 fat to meat. This is 'progress'.

Trouble was, if you were over 50 in the dark ages you would be most unusual
and people would put you in a tent and sell tickets so you could be gawked
at!

People suffered chronic arthritis and literally worked themselves to death,
male and female, and usually in their 40's. Draft animals were much smaller
too, so couldna do some much work.

Given the choice, you coudda lived another 5 or 10 years if you lived in
middle-ages, but as a malnutrioned dwarf.

The Middle was AD, which stands for
anno domini (year of the duck). I studied Greek, you know.

We don't mention the duck no more, since it has a religious insistance not
often shared by all the world with any equanimity, and who have had for the
whole time systems of their own! Which as ani ful no, are based on year of
the Molusc and just as commonly on the Phalanthrope
[phalantropicicus-anthropaedicus dang-hroma].

I am for simplicity and directness. For example, in
my last brilliant game at GetClub:

1.Nf3 c5
2.d4 cd
3.Qxd4 Nf6
4.Bf4 d6! (I vant to fork you, dumkoff!)
5.Nc3?? e5! (I fork you, stupid, stupid program!)

I was just thinking yesterday that despite all the 'better now' comments,
its time that chess engine got forking better. Someone should point out that
looking ahead one move is different than looking ahead one ply.

FYI: I do not read NIC. This explains why you are
nearly an IM, while I am a 1300+. Held at Guantanamo
Bay, I was forced to read CL for ten years or more --
yet I am still better than most players at chess.

You start to sound like Sanny. You are better at what than most chess
players? Juggling chesse sandwiches while whistling Dixie?

You won't be surprised to know that I can't remember any of the games from
over a quarter century ago, but I can remember her volkswagon in far-away
Swabia, and amateur yoddeling sessions in the wee mountains they have by
there, called the Albes.

It just
goes to show -- you can't keep a good bot down.

They don't say that in California, and if someone gets in your elevator the
polite question is 'going up?' Please make a note of it.

PI.

Nov 8, the personal year 28 AD [which in hi!-German means,
Après-Doitchlant.]


-- help bot

1.Nf3 c5
2.d4 cd
3.Qxd4 Nf6
4.Bf4 d6! (I vant to fork you, dumkoff!)
5.Nc3?? e5! (I fork you, stupid, stupid program!)


The Program has been taught how to prevent forks. Now It will avoid
forks.

Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Bye
Sanny

Play chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

1.Nf3 c5
2.d4 cd
3.Qxd4 Nf6
4.Bf4 d6! (I vant to fork you, dumkoff!)
5.Nc3?? e5! (I fork you, stupid, stupid program!)


The Program has been taught how to prevent forks. Now It will avoid
forks.

Play a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Bye
Sanny

Play chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Sanny wrote:
1.Nf3 c5
2.d4 cd
3.Qxd4 Nf6
4.Bf4 d6! (I vant to fork you, dumkoff!)
5.Nc3?? e5! (I fork you, stupid, stupid program!)


The Program has been taught how to prevent forks. Now It will avoid
forks.


Uh-oh. This means I am in big, big trouble! How I'm
agonna win now? The end is near. We are all doomed.
"Computers are ruining chess."

-- help bot