Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:27:33 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 13:18:15, Frederic Friedel wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 12:09:31, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >> >>All this is true, and nevertheless Fritz is being boycotted. Why. >> >>Don't misunderstand me: I am not taking sides for the players that refuse to >>play Fritz, I find this boycott frustrating and I don't sympathize with a >>general attitude that consists in refusing programs in human events. But what is >>happening arises obvious questions about whether computer participation in >>tournaments can be imposed upon chess players against their will. This is, I >>think, a political issue more than anything else. >> > >I do not believe that the majority is against the participation of the computer >and the resulting doubling or more of the prize fund. The majority has agreed to >play. The protest is being led and articulated by a few. I challenge you to take >a poll in Rotterdam: should we withdraw the program any you play on for less >than half the prize fund? > >The main problem in chess is that the spectators, the people who follow the >games on the Internet, in the newspapers and chess magazines, all of these >contribute less than 10% of the cost of staging the event. In some cases less >than 1%. I know of no other sport in which this is the case. Chess has to be >flexible in finding sponsors, or it must be willing to return to the old >backroom days when prize funds were miniscule and the greatest players on the >planet normally died in abject poverty. The idea is good in theory. It is the _implementation_ that is flawed. The right way to do this is to set up a tournament, and in the announcement point out that computer "X" is going to play, and then invite strong humans to join. Tell them about the prize fund, where it comes from (mainly the organization that markets the chess program) and so forth. Give them a _choice_ rather than a two-by-four across the back of the head... this fiasco was 100% predictable. I pointed out how this _same_ thing happened to us in 1981. With the same sort of fracus. And the same sort of negative publicity. And the same stories in the newspapers and on TV. History holds some important lessons, for those that pay attention. In a tournament, it is _not_ "majority rules". A computer ought not play unless it is unanimous. A few dissatisfied players will make way more noise than a larger group of 'happy campers'. And we all lose...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.