MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
I think overall I would have to agree with you on that, but they would have been some really great games to watch either way.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
In case you didn't know, Karpov was better than Spassky. Also, Petrosian was a great positional player and lost to Fischer but wasn't blown away.
Fischer was the best in his day and most likely the best of all time but he wouldn't blow away a Karpov at his peak or Kasparov.
Maybe you forgot that super long match of 1984? Maybe you have forgotten that Karpov drew Kasparov in 1990?
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
After his win against Spassky, Fischer stopped playing altogether. He did not play a single game in an accredited match or tournament, and there were plenty of opportunities to do so, even outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. But as I recall, it was Fischer who behaved badly throughout his match with Spassky, making unreasonable demands, always complaining about something, snuffing the organizers by missing the opening ceremony in Reykjavik, forfeiting games, showing up late, and so on. Spassky put up with Fischer's antics, and did so with a lot of patience. And FIDE went along with many of Fischer's requests. He could have done what Kasparov did after the 48-game marathon. Instead, he chose to quit.
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
That's a little harsh Matt, and their is no question in my mind the results could have been reversed.
Kasparov lost yes, but he wasn't the underdog. This time the underdog, Deep Blue II won.
