Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 13:56:16 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 16:27:14, blass uri wrote: >On May 12, 2000 at 14:41:39, Hans Gerber wrote: > >>On May 08, 2000 at 15:59:02, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2000 at 15:54:14, Jürgen Hartmann wrote: >>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>You totally misunderstand organized chess players. You have probably never been >>>>to a chess club yourself. Most organized chess players are completely >>>>disinterested in publicity, sponsoring, public recognization etc. >>>> >>>>Jürgen >>> >>>If you are organized and professional meaning makeing your living with computer >>>chess you have to be interested in those kind of things as this means more >>>income for you. >>> >>>Stefan >> >>Agreed, but you should be interested in the nature (dignity etc.) of human >>chessplayers too. >> >>Take Bosboom. He simply doesn't accept that a machine can take part in a >>national championship. Now look what he did if the informations are correct. He >>played a few moves and proposed a draw. He spoke to the human being on the other >>side, the programmer, the father of the program. Interpretation: he wanted to be >>friendly to the programmer but he didn't want to play the machine. Now, your >>collegue showed little respect for the conflict of the chessplayer. You see, >>friendly relations seem impossible if machines are in the center of interest. >>Let me ask you if you really believe that a won point is worth always the same >>no matter how it is won? I don't think so. Why not accepting the draw? This is >>common practice in tournament chess. (see also the game SHREDDER vs Karpov...) > >accepting a draw after 4 moves will encourage most of the players to offer a >draw after 4 moves(Even if they believe that the chances are equal they will >prefer not to play and to prepare to the next round). >In this case we will not see a lot of computer-human games. > >Uri Agreed. But if a chessplayer isn't motivated you won't get interesting games anyway. BTW for the same reason these exhibition games have not so much value other than for the public relations department... It's my strong conviction that the computerchess people should create a fair and friendly climate for the chessplayers. Then we will have many good games. Simply due to the need to compete that is part of our human nature. Most important for this aspect is the attention of the computerchess experts not to confuse their machine's performance with their own status in chess. I could give you many examples here in CCC where chessplayers are not taken for serious. It's almost a scandal that exactly F. Friedel, a close friend of Kasparov and other players, shows so little understanding for the players in the actual championship. He argues as if he were a cynical businessman. Very short-sighted his politics. People might laugh but I would recommand that Friedel's company should have given the same FRITZ of the tournament to the participants some 3 months before the beginning of the tournament. I am sure that many more if not all players would have enjoyed to play the machine. Highly motivated and in a good mood. Do you think that the recent history of games between computers and humans could give confidence and joy to the chessplayers? I don't think so. But I hadn't expected F. Friedel, Kasparov's aid in 1997, on the wrong side...
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.