Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:54:05 03/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2000 at 23:14:15, Eelco de Groot wrote: >So "Grab the money and run", I still think that is a bad long-term strategy, for >any professional sportsman or sportswoman. (It would be different if you are a >marathon-runner from Africa and your whole family depends on you and the number >of races you run or if you are called Spassky and get offered a million dollars >or so just to play Fischer one more time. Going by some Grandmaster comments the >overall level of that match was not very high even if these two chess geniuses >could and can still play brilliant chess if they had to. Given the dubious >sources of where that money came from they shouldn't have played but then again >I did buy Seirawan's "No Regrets" about the match so in a way that makes me >equally culpable. But, about their genius, still some good games were played >also. Peter Leko it seems sometimes visits Fischer and Fischer still can find >moves Leko had never thought of in positions of his, Peter's, own games although >he had analyzed them at length.) "Grab the money and run" was an attempt to put it bluntly. Yet it happens all th time. >If there is prize-money and not just some starting fee I don't think Xie would >be totally without chances for that in a "proper" match. I think the Rebel >Grandmaster Challenges have made that clear enough. Given enough preparation >there are still holes to be found in any program, in my lowly opinion. And again >according to Peter Leko, this time in "Computerschaak", grandmasters can also >learn from playing computers, find more computerlike moves, that can be good or >bad if you overdo it by looking at too many implausible moves. So wouldn't that >fit in with Xie's "tactical" style? But that is not something you can develop >quickly of course. Xie Jun might have a very good chance, but there's no incentive to do so. If it were money by point (a faulty thought in my opinion) it would be too much effort for potentially nothing. >So the general public may think that the human cause is lost. That is sad but >Xie could prove it wrong! And apart from that I don't see why any professsional >player would turn down playing against a computer if suitable playing conditions >and prizemoney, maybe starting money if computers really get invincible, were >offered. Even playing against an allknowing database could be interesting of >sorts, just to see who would last more than thirty moves for instance or to see >if somebody could memorize a theoretical draw with all its possible >subvariations... Given the state chess for professionals below the absolute top >that gets invited for Linares is in I suppose we can't blame Xie Jun if she can >earn some money this way. But if Kasparov's site could organize this better, >everybody would profit from that and the match would be much better propaganda >for chess, for Junior, Woman's chess, computerchess, the "human cause" with or >against computers, better propaganda for Kasparov's Chess Club.. I agree with most of it. >Right, that took me about two hours to think up and I had promised to try to do >some more analyzing. Rebel Century 1.2 does not sac a rook for nothing! Time well spent I would say :o). >Regards to everybody here, >Eelco
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.