Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 17:28:35 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2002 at 18:20:46, Russell Reagan wrote: >No, I don't. I am fully aware that SSDF ratings are not the same as FIDE ratings >or any other rating pool. I'm also fully aware that the best engine against >computers is not necessarilly the best engine against humans. That has little to >do with this discussion though. The point is you obviously don't know how Fritz >got to be playing Kramnik. i know. you can read it. eric schiller has published the correspondance. >I'm sorry that you don't remember it. That doesn't change the fact that it >happened. which championship other than hong kong ? >It seems you are the only one with the wrong conclusion here. i have not made any wrong conclusion. you want to present me fritz as a winner. but fritz was always a loser when it came to championships. it was better in the ssdf-list. and other programs have been better against humans. and getting the championship title. the reason fritz was weaker in getting the championship titles was, that fritz is a stupid program. a stupid program cannot get the initiative if the opponent is not giving it away. this has been the same in the event against kramnik so far. >Maybe if you knew >how Fritz got here and didn't just assume it was because it was on the top of >the SSDF rating list you wouldn't be so confused. i am not confused. you fall in the trap of believing a marketing campaign. the campaign should make you forget about facts. the facts are: concerning computer chess championships the statistics show that fritz is a loser. other programs have been more succesful getting the title. >That isn't all, as previously explained. no . you did not explained anything. you came with wrong facts. >IMO you are clueless about this. :-)) i have played more with fritz than many others did :-)) its one of my famoust opponent. the next program i have seen very often is genius. >It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. but it seems that this is too much for you :-)) >>any expert in the computerchess community knows this. >>what about your knowledge about this ? > >What about my knowledge of what? i would look up the sentence you deleted :-)) >Maybe you don't agree with the decision of the organizers to only invite Fritz, >Junior, and Shredder, but that doesn't mean Kramnik has some deal with the Fritz >team and he's intentionally losing games. we will find out about this later. >Everyone acts like this is a giant >marketing conspiracy that has been in the works for years between Kramnik and >the Fritz team, even though it could just as easily be Junior or Shredder >playing Kramnik instead of Fritz. right. but the major difference is that fritz is weaker in playing humans than junior or shredder is. >Here are a few sites I found that talk about how Fritz got to play Kramnik. I'm >sure you're capable of doing a web search and further researching the topic if >you'd like to inform yourself before lashing out again about something you >weren't informed about. i am pretty much informed about this. i read the correspondance between the arbiter and his friends. >Personally I don't think that only selecting Fritz, Junior, and Shredder as >participants was a fair way to determine the best challenger for Kramnik. >However, it's their party, so they can run it however they'd like. Is it fair? >No. But people act like their rights were violated or something because someone >didn't invite them to their party. I don't care who complains or not. All i say is: fritz is too weak. it was wrong to choose such a stupid program , even for a PR-gag. those gags are as old as computerchess is. it began with Anatoly Karpov and the MK1, and followed by dozens of show-fights. they all have the intention to make the people believe that the RESULT, the outcome of the match is NOT known in forward.
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.