Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 23:29:33 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 14:21:08, Albert Silver wrote: >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. Dear Albert, I don't believe the same. In my testing we win against Deep Fritz quite convincenly, so we should be able to beat a stronger version too. >BUT, I also strongly believe that Shredder would have been a tougher opponent >for Kramnik. Here I agree with you. Sandro >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.