Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:30:16 12/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2001 at 18:03:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>Turn it around. Suppose that you plan a match of Diep against the FIDE world >>champion. Would you rather face Kasparov or Anand or Khalifman? Surely, you >>would hope that the weakest one is champion, because you have a much higher odds >>of winning. First of all Khalifman is cheapest of them all he just asks $20000 for such a match. I know this because someone asked him and he asked this amount for a match. No one wanted to pay him though. How khalifman plays a match is easy to define. He plays overwhelming way of chess. If you lose from Khalifman you look silly. Look at his games. Well prepared crushing victories. Though he can need better 2 hours for 40 moves than than 90 30 this is no argument in this case. Add to that that Khalifman is real unknown in western world. Who remembers his name? Anand has played many matches against programs already. I don't know what he would ask for a 10 game match 90 30. Probably a bit less now that he's out of the world champs. Ponomariov or Ivanchuk get the title this year. Anand plays (half)open positions, let's not forget that. On paper ideal for computer. Only problem is that Anand is a super-GM who is simply in these positions also better than computer. Add to that that he never lost a slow level match ever against computer. Against rebel he won with 1.5 - 0.5. Still good from rebel that it drew a game against Anand. Anand's play is deep strategic, like it is from 90% of the world tops player, they make no strategic errors simply. With computer strategic errors are always a big lottery. Of course tactical it might be better than Anand but that won't change outcome of the game as there is something called tactical barrier. Searching deeper doesn't help simply. It won't let the computer play tactics in a way that Anand will mistake. So a match against Anand would be real good PR, but it would be a loss in advance. For the money Anand would be best choice by far when talking about PR, because Kasparov is asking at least 20 times more than anand is for a match. Kasparov isn't world champion anymore. Kramnik is. Kasparov in past was real good choice to play against. He was not taking the things serious and he gave his sponsors what they wanted, namely a few wins. Obviously game 6 in match 2, then kasparov made a stupid mistake. He thought he could win random position from computer, or he had forgotten about the Nxe6 sack. Many people make mistakes like that in openings they never play. IBM had said before match many things but also that this would be last match as deep blue always looked silly. Whatever the reasons. Obviously Kasparov played like 600 points below his level against DB. Only after the match he slowly must have realized how stupid he was. How stubborn. How naive to think that he would get a revanche match. Really naive. My GUESS is that next match kasparov - computer, that kasparov will NOT make this mistake again. If that's just for 10% true, then the computer will be humiliated completely. Getting humiliated by Kasparov is no fun. It's better than NOT playing a match, but Anand's deep strategic play is getting understood less by people so appreciation for what the machine did is bigger. So i would go for Anand. But if i could pick anyone out of the world top who is good for PR and who is not going to humiliate the machine too much (they all will win a match vs computer, so forget that issue) then i'd pick Polgar. >>I think if I were Khalifman, I would have milked the title more by playing >>against commercial programs for cash. I think it would have been attractive to >>both sides for that very reason.
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.