Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:41:58 04/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2001 at 11:32:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >You hit the right word here Bob, > >IF they win such a match then they definitely will not lose a thing. >Definitely true. > >Now we can discuss to great length the chance that they win, but there >is obviously a big risk they lose. Personally i would think that >also a match against the worst ambassador for chess in the world, Kasparov >(as he played around 2300 level in that match in 1997 and we all know >the result for the game of chess: "chess is solved say most AI papers"), >will be a clear and chanceless victory for Kasparov. > >And definitely no game will get a 18 move win over Kasparov again, he'll >not be that stupid again. Would you bet _your_ house on what he will or will not do because of _his_ stupidity? I wouldn't. > >Against Kramnik a 18 move lose would be imaginable (as bad chessplayers >you play on a few moves with computer then till you get -5.0 or something), >but a 18 move win is impossible forever. > >Kramnik can win without any preparement, whereas Kasparov needs to play >his own game instead of playing something where he is an absolute beginner, >even compared to my poor amateur rating (2280 FIDE now though climbing >to IM level slowly). > >>A loss would definitely hurt when compared to a win, but it would not hurt >>the company's stock value as of today one iota. IBM got a world of free (and > >As IBM manager who cares nothing for the game of chess, >would you take the risk Bob? Sooner or later, yes. As I said, "once the shine has worn off" which might take a couple of more years... > >Playing the current world champion is a sure defeat. Kasparov as we know >always played horrible against chessprogs and till 1997 he could get away >with it. Definitely chessprograms are taken more serious now as in >januari 1997, so the underestimation and carelessness of the past will >get slowly away in matches, which means clear defeats of the programs >against those who can play a game without giving away material. I would never say "sure defeat". Everyone said that _before_ the last match. I predicted 4-2 for Kasparov. I was wrong. I don't think anybody _seriously_ thought the computer had a chance... yet... 1997 happened.. > >>very good) publicity from the second Kasparov match. But that was _all_ they >>got, just a windfall of free publicity. Their stock prices might have inched >>up a bit as a result, but only a tiny bit as new investors jumped aboard due to >>all the publicity. To think they would lose billions by playing again and >>losing is a wild stretch of the imagination. > >IMHO the publicity was indeed more likely to be the cause as the result was :) > >Who doesn't buy stocks/shares from a company that's on all TV stations >world wide? Not a lot. I would bet there are _far_ more stockholders through funds than thru direct stock purchases, to avoid the potential risk of one company taking a big hit while everybody else goes up. > >The publicity drum started already weeks before the match till >months after the match. > >Even if expectations nowadays will be less, it's obvious that the big >win in those days will not be risked nowadays. > >>What they would lose is "reputation" in the eyes of the general public, and it >>is not even clear how much "reputation" they would actually lose since they won >>the last match. The 3rd match would not receive near the publicity of the first >>or second. > >Reputation is one of the factors in the hectic stock markets. > > >Greetings, >Vincent
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.