tomgdrums wrote:
I agree that Karpov got the short end of the stick. Karpov was a true champion! He always played and never ducked a challenge.
To put it bluntly Fischer was a coward AND the WORST chess champion of all time!
Hello Tom,
Worst? Coward?
I seem to recall more than one chess champion ducking a challenge. It is called fear. Even two of the ones I admire the most - Capablanca and Alekhine - instituted conditions after they became champions to make beating them more difficult. That tradition lingers to this day incidentally.
Max Euwe, to his credit, did not duck Alekhine for the re-match so as far as world champions go he was special.
I guess I am not so concerned about the machinations as I am about the games they left behind and even though much of Fischer's chess legacy is above my understanding, worst world champion pales in comparison to those games and ideas he left behind.
Just my two cents is all...
Later.
I don't think he was a coward, he was just crazy and paranoid. He was truly a broken person and it was incredibly sad how it all turned out.
His career in chess was way too short when he stopped playing, but he did change chess as much or more than anyone before him in my opinion. Certainly he changed it in the U.S. which did not care about chess until Bobby came along. If it were not for him, I might not even be a computer chess programmer, I was in high school at the time he was playing in the world championship match and benefited over the years from the attention he brought to chess.
I feel really badly for Karpov - who was never given the opportunity to win the championship fair and square. It would have been better to lose than to be world champion but have everyone say that it's only because Fischer wouldn't play. So just by not playing Karpov Fischer managed to dishonor him and minimizing his accomplishments. I think those two could have played some great matches.
As I replied to Roger's post, Fischer's games were great but everyone acquiesced to his demands and wants and he thanked them and chess by quitting and running away. Fischer had problems and the attitude of "his games and his chess are what important" are exactly what caused everyone to give into his whims instead of trying to maybe help him earlier in his life.
I know he brought a lot of people TO chess but I also think his later behavior caused some people to look askance at chess.
Don wrote:Larry and I both have the same philosophy about how we want Komodo to play chess. We both want the program to be impressive in terms of playing strength and we want it to play as much like humans as we can. Other than that, we are not desperate to make it play any particular way.
We know that many users will prefer an aggressive style but that there are many players who really like Komodo's current style.
Variety is the spice of life. Komodo is great just the way it is.
tomgdrums wrote:
I agree that Karpov got the short end of the stick. Karpov was a true champion! He always played and never ducked a challenge.
To put it bluntly Fischer was a coward AND the WORST chess champion of all time!
Hello Tom,
Worst? Coward?
I seem to recall more than one chess champion ducking a challenge. It is called fear. Even two of the ones I admire the most - Capablanca and Alekhine - instituted conditions after they became champions to make beating them more difficult. That tradition lingers to this day incidentally.
Max Euwe, to his credit, did not duck Alekhine for the re-match so as far as world champions go he was special.
I guess I am not so concerned about the machinations as I am about the games they left behind and even though much of Fischer's chess legacy is above my understanding, worst world champion pales in comparison to those games and ideas he left behind.
Just my two cents is all...
Later.
I don't think he was a coward, he was just crazy and paranoid. He was truly a broken person and it was incredibly sad how it all turned out.
His career in chess was way too short when he stopped playing, but he did change chess as much or more than anyone before him in my opinion. Certainly he changed it in the U.S. which did not care about chess until Bobby came along. If it were not for him, I might not even be a computer chess programmer, I was in high school at the time he was playing in the world championship match and benefited over the years from the attention he brought to chess.
I feel really badly for Karpov - who was never given the opportunity to win the championship fair and square. It would have been better to lose than to be world champion but have everyone say that it's only because Fischer wouldn't play. So just by not playing Karpov Fischer managed to dishonor him and minimizing his accomplishments. I think those two could have played some great matches.
As I replied to Roger's post, Fischer's games were great but everyone acquiesced to his demands and wants and he thanked them and chess by quitting and running away. Fischer had problems and the attitude of "his games and his chess are what important" are exactly what caused everyone to give into his whims instead of trying to maybe help him earlier in his life.
I know he brought a lot of people TO chess but I also think his later behavior caused some people to look askance at chess.
He was a horrible champion.
Great player but a crappy champion.
My 2 cents:
Remember when Fischer won the world championship. His antipathy towards Soviet players, and probably more accurately the Soviet system as regards chess. Remember also he did not refuse to play Karpov; he put forward conditions to be met before he would play. Many agreed with his conditions, many, and most importantly FIDE, did not. Prior to Fischer, remember, world champions had some leeway in putting forward conditions for a match, such as Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, etc. Had he played Karpov at that time I believe he would have won easily - Karpov was just not a match for him at the time. Later, 3 - 5 years or so, a match would have been more even maybe an edge for Karpov, and another 3 - 5 years later yet Karpov would have won a match rather decisively. IMO. Other than a WCh match, Fischer could and should have played in tournaments now and again but he didn't, withdrawing from chess until the 2nd Spassky match. OTOH, Karpov's record, in this respect - that of playing in tournaments, I think has never been surpassed for a world champion, or if it has, not by much. During this time, Karpov demonstrated he was a more than worthy world champion and deserves the greatest respect, imo. This is a rather stark difference. Fischer's games were a legacy not to be forgotten, as was his unfortunate descent into mental illness.
IMO.
YMMV
Don wrote:Larry and I both have the same philosophy about how we want Komodo to play chess. We both want the program to be impressive in terms of playing strength and we want it to play as much like humans as we can. Other than that, we are not desperate to make it play any particular way.
We know that many users will prefer an aggressive style but that there are many players who really like Komodo's current style.
Variety is the spice of life. Komodo is great just the way it is.
Thank your for saying that. I think more people like Komodo's playing style than not by far from the comments I have received in public and in private, but there will always be a few who don't. But that is normal, it would be boring if we all liked the same exact thing.
Don wrote:Larry and I both have the same philosophy about how we want Komodo to play chess. We both want the program to be impressive in terms of playing strength and we want it to play as much like humans as we can. Other than that, we are not desperate to make it play any particular way.
We know that many users will prefer an aggressive style but that there are many players who really like Komodo's current style.
Variety is the spice of life. Komodo is great just the way it is.
Thank your for saying that. I think more people like Komodo's playing style than not by far from the comments I have received in public and in private, but there will always be a few who don't. But that is normal, it would be boring if we all liked the same exact thing.
I quite like its style frankly. BTW, it instantly crashes if I try to give it 4GB hash, is that normal? Also, have you thought of TB support such as Gaviota?
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
tomgdrums wrote:
I agree that Karpov got the short end of the stick. Karpov was a true champion! He always played and never ducked a challenge.
To put it bluntly Fischer was a coward AND the WORST chess champion of all time!
Hello Tom,
Worst? Coward?
I seem to recall more than one chess champion ducking a challenge. It is called fear. Even two of the ones I admire the most - Capablanca and Alekhine - instituted conditions after they became champions to make beating them more difficult. That tradition lingers to this day incidentally.
Max Euwe, to his credit, did not duck Alekhine for the re-match so as far as world champions go he was special.
I guess I am not so concerned about the machinations as I am about the games they left behind and even though much of Fischer's chess legacy is above my understanding, worst world champion pales in comparison to those games and ideas he left behind.
Just my two cents is all...
Later.
I don't think he was a coward, he was just crazy and paranoid. He was truly a broken person and it was incredibly sad how it all turned out.
His career in chess was way too short when he stopped playing, but he did change chess as much or more than anyone before him in my opinion. Certainly he changed it in the U.S. which did not care about chess until Bobby came along. If it were not for him, I might not even be a computer chess programmer, I was in high school at the time he was playing in the world championship match and benefited over the years from the attention he brought to chess.
I feel really badly for Karpov - who was never given the opportunity to win the championship fair and square. It would have been better to lose than to be world champion but have everyone say that it's only because Fischer wouldn't play. So just by not playing Karpov Fischer managed to dishonor him and minimizing his accomplishments. I think those two could have played some great matches.
As I replied to Roger's post, Fischer's games were great but everyone acquiesced to his demands and wants and he thanked them and chess by quitting and running away. Fischer had problems and the attitude of "his games and his chess are what important" are exactly what caused everyone to give into his whims instead of trying to maybe help him earlier in his life.
I know he brought a lot of people TO chess but I also think his later behavior caused some people to look askance at chess.
He was a horrible champion.
Great player but a crappy champion.
I agree with everything you said - it's exactly how I feel. I have always been irked when certain people get extra consideration because they happen to be especially good. The average Joe would be booted out of any tournament or match behaving like he did. I remember seeing John McEnroe getting away with much more than I think anyone else would have been allowed at the time because he happened to be the dominant player at the time. It's just people bowing to pressure - had they been tough on Fischer like they should have, they would have had to put up with some heat and they couldn't handle it.
tomgdrums wrote:
I agree that Karpov got the short end of the stick. Karpov was a true champion! He always played and never ducked a challenge.
To put it bluntly Fischer was a coward AND the WORST chess champion of all time!
Hello Tom,
Worst? Coward?
I seem to recall more than one chess champion ducking a challenge. It is called fear. Even two of the ones I admire the most - Capablanca and Alekhine - instituted conditions after they became champions to make beating them more difficult. That tradition lingers to this day incidentally.
Max Euwe, to his credit, did not duck Alekhine for the re-match so as far as world champions go he was special.
I guess I am not so concerned about the machinations as I am about the games they left behind and even though much of Fischer's chess legacy is above my understanding, worst world champion pales in comparison to those games and ideas he left behind.
Just my two cents is all...
Later.
I don't think he was a coward, he was just crazy and paranoid. He was truly a broken person and it was incredibly sad how it all turned out.
His career in chess was way too short when he stopped playing, but he did change chess as much or more than anyone before him in my opinion. Certainly he changed it in the U.S. which did not care about chess until Bobby came along. If it were not for him, I might not even be a computer chess programmer, I was in high school at the time he was playing in the world championship match and benefited over the years from the attention he brought to chess.
I feel really badly for Karpov - who was never given the opportunity to win the championship fair and square. It would have been better to lose than to be world champion but have everyone say that it's only because Fischer wouldn't play. So just by not playing Karpov Fischer managed to dishonor him and minimizing his accomplishments. I think those two could have played some great matches.
As I replied to Roger's post, Fischer's games were great but everyone acquiesced to his demands and wants and he thanked them and chess by quitting and running away. Fischer had problems and the attitude of "his games and his chess are what important" are exactly what caused everyone to give into his whims instead of trying to maybe help him earlier in his life.
I know he brought a lot of people TO chess but I also think his later behavior caused some people to look askance at chess.
He was a horrible champion.
Great player but a crappy champion.
I remember seeing John McEnroe getting away with much more than I think anyone else would have been allowed at the time because he happened to be the dominant player at the time.
I remember McEnroe having a stink in a match against Connors once and refusing to play. Connors came to the net and told him he would knock his block off if he didn't.
McEnroe stared at him for maybe two seconds and promptly got into position to serve.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Don wrote:Larry and I both have the same philosophy about how we want Komodo to play chess. We both want the program to be impressive in terms of playing strength and we want it to play as much like humans as we can. Other than that, we are not desperate to make it play any particular way.
We know that many users will prefer an aggressive style but that there are many players who really like Komodo's current style.
Variety is the spice of life. Komodo is great just the way it is.
Thank your for saying that. I think more people like Komodo's playing style than not by far from the comments I have received in public and in private, but there will always be a few who don't. But that is normal, it would be boring if we all liked the same exact thing.
I quite like its style frankly. BTW, it instantly crashes if I try to give it 4GB hash, is that normal? Also, have you thought of TB support such as Gaviota?
It should not crash with 4GB, we fixed that long ago. Which OS and Platform? 64 bit windows?
I just tried it on my system (64 bit linux) and it's working fine. Do you get a specific error message or anything like that?
Don wrote:Larry and I both have the same philosophy about how we want Komodo to play chess. We both want the program to be impressive in terms of playing strength and we want it to play as much like humans as we can. Other than that, we are not desperate to make it play any particular way.
We know that many users will prefer an aggressive style but that there are many players who really like Komodo's current style.
Variety is the spice of life. Komodo is great just the way it is.
Thank your for saying that. I think more people like Komodo's playing style than not by far from the comments I have received in public and in private, but there will always be a few who don't. But that is normal, it would be boring if we all liked the same exact thing.
I quite like its style frankly. BTW, it instantly crashes if I try to give it 4GB hash, is that normal? Also, have you thought of TB support such as Gaviota?
It should not crash with 4GB, we fixed that long ago. Which OS and Platform? 64 bit windows?
I just tried it on my system (64 bit linux) and it's working fine. Do you get a specific error message or anything like that?
Don
Win7 x64. Chessbase. I also just checked with Arena 3.0 and same result.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
