On 29 Nov 2003 12:41:26 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

I doubt it. Actually, it might reinforce his evident position.

I see where my point was obscure. I clarified it in a reply to
Houlsby.

Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game'
(to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?

No, Mike Murray would be frustrated by the distinction between a
"good" game and an "excellent" game.

I mentioned some time ago that distinguishing between perfect and
near-perfect will be problematic for testing or validating any
computer program, several millennia from now, that claims to play "the
perfect game".

'To err is human,'

But to really screw things up requires a computer.

Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
(Mark Houlsby) wrote:
Mike Murray wrote in
message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:
How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a
near perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

Why would the fact that it supports my argument and counters yours
"break [my] heart"?

Notice: "mistake", "*near* perfect", "lost".
Perfect (no mistake) = draw
"mistake" "near perfect" = "lost"

Houlsby, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Here's the point you missed:
After all your jabber about "go read Informant" for evidence that decisive
games are *lost*, not *won* (and therefore, the perfect game is a draw),
we now see that even Karpov couldn't tell where he went wrong in one of
his own games....

How astonishing! A losing player (Karpov) has admitted that he was unable to
recognise his error(s) in his lost game. Surely, that must be unprecedented.

Did Mike Murray presume that Karpov (who lost that game before he became
the FIDE World Champion) already was supposed to be omniscient about chess?

"We Never Make Mistakes"
--the title (in English translation) of a book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

--Nick

And here I thought +763 =1144 -167 was an impressive career score.

John Fernandez

Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2003 06:20:11 -0800, (Mark
Houlsby) wrote:

Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:41:34 GMT, EZoto wrote:

How about when Petrosian beat Karpov in a game and Karpov begged
Petrosian to show him his mistake. Karpov thought he played a near
perfect game and still lost.

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

Why would the fact that it supports my argument and counters yours
"break [my] heart"?

Notice:

"mistake", "*near* perfect", "lost".

Perfect (no mistake)=draw
"mistake" "near perfect"="lost"

Houlsby, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.

That's beyond doubt. What's your point?


Here's the point you
missed: After all your jabber about "go read Informant" for evidence
that decisive games are *lost*, not *won* (and therefore, the perfect
game is a draw), we now see that even Karpov couldn't tell where he
went wrong in one of his own games.

Right, but he did not doubt that it *contained* a decisive mistake. So
notwithstanding my being "dumber than a bag of hammers" I understood
this, and yet you did not. Trolling therefore makes you look *even
dumber* than somebody who is, unequivocally, "dumber than a bag of
hammers". Way to go!

As Watson points out, moves
deemed *the* critical mistake in one era of annotation often become
more than playable in another.

Indeed. This is what the advancement of theory is all about.

The idea that an average player can
identify a mistake in a non-trivial GM game, i.e., decided by
something other than an obvious blunder, is naive, indeed.

Agreed. This is *why* I *entreat* patzers like me to "go read
Informant".

(Now, what
is an"obvious blunder"? Operationally, something that an average
player can spot, of course).

Ummmmmm OK. What's your point, troll?

Mike Murray wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2003 12:41:26 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

Don't tell Houlsby about this. It will break his heart.

I doubt it. Actually, it might reinforce his evident position.

I see where my point was obscure. I clarified it in a reply to
Houlsby.


Did you? Which clarification, in which reply, was that?

Can Mike Murray recognise any distinction between a '*near* perfect game'
(to quote EZoto) and a 'perfect game'?

No, Mike Murray would be frustrated by the distinction between a
"good" game and an "excellent" game.

I mentioned some time ago that distinguishing between perfect and
near-perfect will be problematic for testing or validating any
computer program, several millennia from now, that claims to play "the
perfect game".


I reckon that it's safe for me to predict that "several millennia from
now", chess *will have been solved*, that computers will have played
their part in solving chess, and that the perfect game (or, indeed,
perfect games, if chess proves to have a number of solutions) will be
beginning to languish in obscurity, as will the game itself. Indeed,
"several millennia from now", I predict, Fischerrandom chess will have
been solved, too.....

'To err is human,'

But to really screw things up requires a computer.

....programmed by humans.

On 27 Nov 2003 20:03:33 -0800, (Ivan) wrote:

How come he always drew chess games with his opponents except for the
rare times when he won or lost?

I think this guy has to be the weakest chess player ever to become
world champion. Botvinnik was quite old by the time he played
Petrosian for the world championship and Tigran was lucky that he was
young.

As said by so many people.

His reputation is undeserved however.

"Petrosian remains the only player to pass through both the interzonal
tournament and the candidates competition, without the loss of even
one single game (neither Fischer nor Kasparov did that; Fischer lost
to Larsen in the Interzonal, and lost a game to Petrosian in their
candidates match; Kasparov lost a game to Belyavsky, and one to
Korchnoi, in their candidates matches).

Petrosian also became the first player since Alekhine to win a match
in defence of the World Champion's title, by beating Boris Spassky in
1966 by the score 12-1/2 to 11-1/2. The previous win by a champion
defending is title was Alexander Alekhine's victory over Effim
Bogoljubov in 1934."

As quoted from http://www.tim-thomspon.com/petrosian.html

Weak??

__
__OGONEKO

EZoto wrote in
message ws.com...
Nick wrote:
(context snipped by EZoto; please read my earlier post in this thread)
As far as I know, Karpov did *not* say to Petrosian:
"I am certain that I made no errors in the game that I just lost to you.
Hence, that's evidence that chess should be a forced win for White."

Karpov asked ( begged ) Petrosian to show him his mistake.
He didn't know what he did wrong. What is so unusual about that?

I did *not* write or imply that it was 'so unusual' for a chess game's loser
(Karpov) to ask its winner (Petrosian) for that explanation.

Unfortunately, misreading what I have written hardly seems 'so unusual' here.

--Nick

I did *not* write or imply that it was 'so unusual' for a chess game's loser
(Karpov) to ask its winner (Petrosian) for that explanation.

Unfortunately, misreading what I have written hardly seems 'so unusual' here.

--Nick

No problem then. Was misread on my part. Sorry about that.

EZoto