Author: Harald Faber
Date: 21:26:49 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 17:26:59, Bertil Eklund wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 16:34:05, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I believe that kramnik simply lost on purpose. >> >>The reason that I believe it is the way that kramnik lost. >>Kramnik does not do one ply blunder in 120/40 games against humans like he did >>against Fritz. >> >>Kramnik is also not the person to do often speculative sacrifices and based on >>analysis of more than hundred of games it was possible to find only one against >>anand. >> >>The fact that kramnik did the blunders that he did suggest the conjecture that >>kramnik was cheating. >> >>Uri > >So you believe Chessbase paid him over 200000 USD for the draw of the match?! >Chessbase didn't pay the price-money and costs for the match. >Fritz also had an almost won position in game 7 but Chessbase immediately >accepted a draw. If they had paid the price-money, they should of course have >played on. Why did he prepare so hard for the games if he intended to lose the >games on purpose. > >Bertil Imagine Kramnik found weaknesses in Fritz play. More than the one "trading queens and win the endgame". And he would have exploited them, continued the 2.5-0.5 after 3 games to the end like 6-2. What do you think, when would the next human-machine event take place? Next year? Certainly not. And Kramnik would have to find new weaknesses again because the CB team is not blind and fixes the shown problems. So the 4-4 quasi guarantees another human-machine match and the chances for an earlier date than after a 6-2 in favour of Kramnik are bigger. Kramnnik can certainly live well for one or two years from the 600.000 US-$ he received for the 4-4. So next year or 2004 another 600.000US-$ and so on, well personally I could live with that. :-)
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.