Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 06:20:14 11/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2001 at 07:25:10, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 17, 2001 at 05:34:23, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On November 15, 2001 at 17:52:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On November 15, 2001 at 14:28:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 15, 2001 at 13:52:07, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 15, 2001 at 13:21:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 15, 2001 at 13:13:08, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>You seem to overlook the CCT tournaments of which there have been three so far >>>>>>>with a fourth not far away. These are, in some respect at least, American >>>>>>>tournaments as they run on an American server, with a large number of American >>>>>>>programs (11 out of 32 in the last tournament). >>>>>> >>>>>>Lets please not compare real-life tournaments to semi-serious internet >>>>>>events. >>>>> >>>>>What makes an internet tournament any less real or serious that any other >>>>>tournament? I have participated in both types of tournaments, and they seem >>>>>equally real to me. I can assure you that they were taken pretty seriously by >>>>>most participants. >>>> >>>>I do not consider an internet tournament as serious as a real >>>>tournament. >>>> >>>>Also, I was referring to organizing one. >>> >>>The contention was made that computer chess is dead in America. >> >>I haven't seen such a statement. >> >>I think the discussion is about the impotence to find an US sponser. >> >>My best shot on this: Chess is solved, DB-GK NY 1997. That's the general >>impression people have. That is the way the event and its result was >>brought under the attention of the masses by the media. I still remember >>the grimaces on Kasparov's face after game-6. The whole world saw it too, >>the face of somebody in great pain because he lost. The battle between >>man and computer was over, the computer has won. Why should any sponsor >>put money in old news. >> >>Ed > >1)The event is not human-computer but computer-computer. >Even if you suppose that the world champion is weaker than a chess program >I do not see a reason to stop to be interested in comp-comp games. > >Even in 1980 computers were already better than most of the humans and I do not >see a reason for most of the humans to care if computers can beat the world >champion or can beat only them. Your points are as valid as mine. They don't exclude each other. >2)The claim that computer beated the world champion could be a good reason not >to offer money for Kramnik-Fritz match and it is a fact that kramnik-Fritz match >is probably going to happen. Exceptional sponsor. You will not find many in US. Ed >Uri
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.