Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:06:48 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 06:31:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 05:39:22, Geo Disher wrote: > >>On September 05, 2001 at 22:43:29, Jay Rinde wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2001 at 22:32:52, Chris Kantack wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2001 at 15:24:56, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>>>I think that was the original point. Common people who make bets DON'T know >>>>>much about chess. The common conception is that computers are better than >>>>>humans. So the masses will bet against Kramnik, making the odds favorable for >>>>>those of us who know better! >>>> >>>>I completely agree with what has been stated in this thread. But what if Vegas >>>>was looking for some kind of "point spread"? That is, what will the final >>>>match score be? I believe most of us know Kramnik could go undefeated if he >>>>wanted to. But how will he play this match? Will he keep the score close to >>>>make it look good? In other words, will Kramnik throw a few games to keep the >>>>interest level up? I would not be surprised if that was the plan. >>> >>>You must be joking!! Yes, you are joking. >> >>I don't believe he is joking and I agree that it would be in Kamniks interest >>not to win all the games if he could. It would appear that this match was much >>diffrent than the Deep Blue Match if he put all his energy into this and won all >>the games which I believe he might be able to do. This could jeopardize the >>interest in another match. Anyway all this being said I would not like to bet >>on the spread but on win or loss. Kramnik to win. > >I believe that if kramnik can win all the games there is no >reason for him not to do it. > >I do not think that there will be no interest in another match >in the future if kramnik gets 100% > >Kasparov also got 100% against Deep thought and later >there was an interest in another match of kasparov >against deep blue. > >I expect kramnik to win the match but I do not believe that >he can win all the games when he does not have the exact program. > >I think you simply underestimate the machine. > >A weaker version that did not use 8 proceesors drew 3-3 with >GM heubner and I do not believe that >kramnik can get 100% against huebner. > >Uri Chess is not necessarily transitive. Nothing says that if A beats B 100% of the time, and B plays evenly with C 100% of the time, then A will beat C 100% of the time. Even the Elo calculations don't suggest that. I don't think Kramnik will win every game. But not because he can't. Because the match is set up in such a way that taking any risk should be avoided. I suspect he is smart enought and wise enough so that he will adopt a match strategy that attempts to maximize money won without taking undue risks that could backfire.
This page took 0.01 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.