Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:06:57 03/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2002 at 15:19:29, Joe McCarro wrote: >>>It seems like it would take regular competition between world class human >>>players and computers for the consensus to be that computers are better than the >>>best human players. We all know computers are "really good", so unless we can >>>say with relative certainty that computers are better than the best human >>>players, do any of these matches mean anything? As far as I can tell, these >>>matches just lead to the conclusion that "we don't know". >>> >>>What do you think? >> >>I think it's a great idea, but it will be hard to get someone to pay for it and >>it will be even harder to get the GM's to do it unless the money is fantastic. >>Got anyone in mind to bankroll the project? >> >>The Junior team and the Rebel team have been doing efforts like this for many >>years on a small scale. Most of the relevant data we have is from these >>efforts. > >I will never understand why there aren't more human v. comp games. > >I will never understand why the money has to be fantastic. GMs generally don't >make fantastic amounts for playing in a tournament. Sure sometimes they win the >big prize but sometimes not. How much does a given GM average per tournament? >If they are asking for more than that, they are scared. If software companies >expect they can pay less, then the Companies are not respecting the GMs time. >This shouldn't be tough to negotiate. > >I can't imagine that if GMs thought they could easilly mop up on compuyters they >wouldn't go ahead and take the money. Accordingly, my theory is that they all >think people will lose interest in their games and bring in smaller purses if >they start losing to computers. I think they must know this, and therefore >don't play. I do not think that is the case. GMs are very individual persons, they won't get into such masonic conspiracies :-) >It woudl seem to me adding a GM computer match would only seem to add to the >popularity of any tounamment hence bring in more money. Didn't there used to be >a Boston Mass. tournament humans v. computers? Are GMS extorting game makers >and charging more than their typical going rate? Are computer program companies >expecting to be able to pay less? What is the deal? My guess: If the GM have to take this seriously, they have to prepare themselves to play against a computer. That is time wasted, since they most of the time play against humans. So, if you want a GM to prepare one month to play a matc against a computer, the GM will need an extra month to catch up with the preparation against their fellow humans. I believe it takes them out of rythm and some might not want to deal with that. Second, there might be less money to sponsor such events, since the general public might think that computers already are stronger than humans after DB-GK. I do not think deep blue was any good for computer chess at all. In fact, I think it was quite terrible. Regards, Miguel
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.