Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 10:51:34 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 13:26:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 18:55:29, Duncan Stanley wrote: > >>On April 21, 2001 at 12:26:21, Alois Ganter wrote: >> >>>I think we are all agreed that Kramnik vs. Machine is a purely commercial event: >>> >>>a) Kramnik gets money from Braingames because he plays. >>>b) Braingames gets money because they organize the event, attract sponsors and >>>contract Kramnik. >>>c) Braingames gets money from the machine guys because they get publicity. >>>d) The machine guys get money because they sell more machines. >>> >>>-------- >>> >>>I remember another purely commercial event: >>> >>>a) Kasparov gets money from the machine guys because he plays. >>>b) The machine guys get money because they sell more machines. >>> >>>I still remember how Hyatt and Moreland complained loudly that Junior or Fritz >>>(who where the ICCA champions at that time) should play Kasparov and not Deep >>>Blue. >> >>Your irony appears to be lost on them. > >Ah yes, it was lost on me, but I've found it. > >I've never complained that any program shouldn't be able to play any human. If >they would have just picked Junior or Fritz, no problem. What bothers me is >that they are going to hold a qualifying tournament, and the winner of that will >be presented as some sort of world champion. I contend that if there is a need >to find a champion, one does not need to look beyond the one we already have. > >bruce I guess BGN can do whatever they want in regard to selecting an opponent for Kramnik. Whatever they do, and however they do it, is not going to be any big deal come the match. Whether invitation, one selected opponent, an open event whatever, whatever, whatever - do you really believe Joe Public is going to be bothered about how the computer opponent was selected? So there is whingeing on computer chess forums, with claim and counter-claim about the terrible unfairness to other programs. Does the program care about fairness to machines? I guess the chess public would moan and groan about unfairness to its favourite chess players, but to chess playing machines? Big deal and so what. So one program made it and another didn't. Is there any difference between the programs? Any real difference? The deal will be: can a machine beat a human. Not how the machine was selected. Just so long as the chooser didn't select a Fidelity Chess Challenger 1982 version, all will be just fine. Will the public be horrified that the 'evil' Chessbase got its program in? Is the public interested in the relative evilness of the competing computer chess commercial entities? I think not. It will probably expect the competing program to be owned by some nerd who never sees the light of day and lives on take-away pizza and diet-coke. Which program will be utterly unimportant. Only here are you guys worried about it. BGN should and probably will just go ahead and ignore you.
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.