Author: David H. McClain
Date: 04:39:49 07/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
I agree with GM Yates and Uri. Chessbase needs to find some "new blood" for these matches, people like Polgar or Radjabov or even Ponamariov. Offer them the money and let them be creative in their own way, win or lose. Let chessbase tune their programs any way they want to play these new players. In my opinion a match like this would be of much more interest than a forgone conclusion as to what Kasparov will do: more afraid of losing than wanting to win. The money should be assessed more to the advantage of the winner, not ~ $600,000 if you lose or draw then the incentive to win will be there. How seriously can you interpret a match and the analysis afterwards when you make over half a million dollars to draw it? I am not downing Kasparov's skills at all, just his methods and his incentive. If any of these super GMs played any program that was strictly bought "off the shelf" and not specially tuned by their programmers running on 8 processors the GMs would win "hands down." To give the names of Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs and Fritz to the same programs that played the GMs and insinuate this is what the public buys is deceiving. They are no more the same program than a Volkswagon is a Porsche 911. Chessmaster would be crucified by these super GMs in any configuration at 40/120. The "off the shelf" programs are too predictable. There are many examples of this in the archives of ICC.com and very few, if any, were played against super GMs @ 40/120. To prove this bring what you have and offer a super GM on ICC.com the money to play him @ 40/120 and see what happens.
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.