Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:40:30 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 10:36:44, Bob Bachman wrote: >Rolf > >I always enjoy reading your posts. Your opinions are distinct and it forces me >to think in ways I never considered. Thanks, Bob. That is exactly what I am writing for. I do not see a meaning in just belonging to a claque and supporting known arguments. (no typo this one!) >I think comercialism is a necesiity if any >sport is to survive. True. But show events therefore are still not sport. That is the problem here. > As a result everyone's motives can be questioned. But does >one question everything a Tiger Woods does or says because he has been paid off. Honest answer? Yes, I would always doubt the motivation of someone who gets already half a million or more just for being there. That will corrupt everyone. You know in the sense that he is not there to win but to be nice. A big difference in top sports. Because if you want to win by all means you have no time to be nice. You're simply on dope. Sorry on adrenaline. Or whatever. Call it alpha state. But you are unable to perform like an actor at the same time. And exactly this is excluded by a million dollars in advance. Couple of months ago Tiger was in Germany. He was never the leading player. But the crowd was still happy to see him. This is called show events. Fischer almost never played for show. He always tried to play his best chess. I saw him play very closely in 1970. He had a simple ethic. Give the people his best chess. And to do this he even fought the organizers and sponsors. Difference to Kasparov. Even with bad chess he wants to win. See 1997. > >I have a few specific questions for you. > >If you controlled the process, how would a man-machine match be structured so >that everything was satisfactory from a sporting point of view (payment, >non-payment, sponsorship etc?) A bit unprepared, but still I can say, let the machines play in tournamen t chess and let them qualify. Stop with these show events where the best of the human players is paralysed by million dollars, their stamina or fighting spirit. > >What should the specific match playing rules be for the man and the program. All that has been said already. Read the archives here or for rgcc please. These details must be negotiated. But I wanted that the chess progs had only that support that would be principally possible for them to achieve. But it's clear that the books gives them the possibility to imposter GM status which is not there. I mean, the attitude in CC and also here in CCC is clear. Everybody knows that the real strength in Elo numbers would suffer the moment a program had to keep a certain identity and would then play tournament chess. Because only then a good preparation would make sense to the GM. In such show events or even in a sponsored Dutch championships such a participation of a program WITHOUT qualification is a hoax at best and a concrete interruptio for most players. Simply because CC is not human chess. (BTW only that is the reason for the existing delusions about the real strength of the progs. In words: because human players did not yet start to prepare on CC. Chess lays do underestimate that. They take the show results as face values. And talk about GM status.) The question of identity and surrounding problems is the most difficult if progs would play tournament chess. Because you simply can't allow that for each round you have a different identity. Personality and such. Exactly what is possible - and the clue of it all - in show events of 6 games or 8. It's just for fun. Rolf Tueschen > >Bob
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.