Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:21:08 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 08:23:19, Larry Proffer wrote:
>On May 12, 2001 at 07:38:04, Drazen Marovic wrote:
>
>> Myself i'm pretty much just interested in chess matters. Here though i must
>>wonder why not play? Because shredder is a commercial program in other words
>>made at least somewhat for profit, and the potential earnings from playing,
>>though i don't know, I would expect would have made shredder a considerable
>>more amount of money than it does just by being sold to the public, not to
>>mention the free publicity. From a "computer chess business" point of view(pov)
>>what supports this decision? I can't see how NOT playing can maximize revenue
>>or future profits.
>>
>>D
>
>From a business point of view the Ossi action of withdrawal appears to be an act
>of total insanity.
I am somewhat perplexed. I seem to recall the long explanation as to why
Shredder would not be participating, and noticed it was signed not by Ossi
Weiner, but the program's author. This isn't to say thast Ossi had nothing to do
with it (I cannot say), but I distinctly remember that much. It was Shredder's
(and its author's) title that was spurned for example, and not Ossi's.
>
>1. He gives the event, in effect, to one of his greatest competitors.
>
>2. He throws away what we assume is the losers purse of $200,000.
Oh? The conditions must have changed once again. Last I read, the loser's purse
was zero.
>
>3. He throws away all the free publicity and the exposure of World Champion
>Shredder to a massive public audience.
Two things must be considered in spite of it all. I strongly believe that
Shredder would have lost to Deep Fritz for example in a long comp-comp match.
BUT, I also strongly believe that Shredder would have been a tougher opponent
for Kramnik. That is my sincere opinion (and just an opinion, of course). Which
brings back the much discussed point, though competely irrelevant now, that a
comp-comp match, however long, will never shred so much as an inkling on who the
most appropriate opponent for a human player is.
If you understand and believe all this as well, then even from a business point
of view it isn't crazy.
The points believed being:
1) Shredder would lose to DF as DF is the better comp-killer (of the two).
2) Shredder would be the best opponent for Kramnik, but would never have a
chance to show this.
3) Losing to DF in a challenge supposed to show the best opponent for a human,
when that proposition can never happen in these conditions (and I'm completely
overlooking the whole WC issue on purpose here) makes it an all lose and no win
situation.
4) There isn't even a nice monetary bonus at the end, since I don't believe for
an instant that any program has a chance to hold Kramink under the conditions as
such. In fact he'd be out of the rather high inscription price for a bogus event
(because of point 3).
BTW, my memory of the prize distribution is that if the comp loses, then Kramnik
walks home with $1M. If it draws, then the comp gets $200 G, and if it actually
wins, then it gets $400 G. I don't think Kramnik will hand over $200 G. Would
you?
Albert
>
>
>If Ossi was running a public company like this he'ld be out on his ear. I
>suppose with his own little company he can do what he wants, but, it still seems
>bonkers.
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.