Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:27:17 01/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 23:56:11, margolies,marc wrote: >I am not prepared to simplify the need for profit as "greed." sometimes it is >validation or even existential imperative. You mean hamster in cage? >And I do not believe sponsorship of itself tarnishes a chess or computer chess >event, Of course it does. It's like poison. Because it spoils the character of the artist. Just take Kramnik as a good example. It is simply not fair to betray the whole world about the strength of some Fritz. And this is what happened in Bahrain. At first it went good, too good, then suddenly the million he got promissed already before the event began its fatal evil. Suddenly he left the chess dimension and began to reflect about continuations of that sort. Because what is 1 million if you have family. Especially if you are a Russian. So this is a form of greed then. I say, it is no longer authentic chess. But this has a log tradition as I said, it all began with Karpov promoting the first commercial play toy in the seventies. Ridiculous from today's perspective. And then already began the draws here and there in one game at least to stir up the interest of the potential clients. Kasparov lost already 1 game against GENIUS 3!! Then he played DEEP BLUE 2 and the whole world had already lost its coordinate system. And Kasparov had lost his status because he had tolerated that people with at lest 300 points behind him (GM Benjamin) and not to speak of the real chess talents of the operaters (500 or 600 lower?) busted him in the 'control' of the whole event. That was a scandal because promotion, commercials ALWAYS respected the myth of the highly recompensated VIP. That is basically what happened. And it's a fact that Kasparov as the genial player could not cope with such a turn. Here his manager and staff should have shown professionality, but that exactly is simply not existent in the small chess field. Ok, I can show you the simple trick for Kasparov how he could have turned the wind again in his favor. He should have said what the whole event was. A money printing miracle with no chess background whatsoever. But that was not possible after Kasparov's own stupid promotion before the show event. As I said it was kind of schizophrenic because in one article he had given dozens of examples for the actual handicaps of the machine while in interviews he spoke of the decision in the challenge Man vs Machine. What a nonsense. As if Ali had accepted that his show against the Japonese wrestler could answer the question who's the Greatest. But the main reason for all this _was_ in fact the greed for money. It was kind of ridiculous! This money had completely confused Kasparov's self-conscience. The surrounding advisors (ChessBase!) believed in the same delusion of importance. As if masses of interested fans had to be kept under control so that they couldn't steal his watch. In his perception he saw himself as a new Jesus or sort like that. Truth is that chess, also if the promoting heroe gets a million dollars, remains a niche in economy. Just go for a visit in the Dutch Wijk aan Zee, there you can meet the players in the only local shop and you don't even beg them for an autograph, of course not! And all this is the reason for the defeat of Kasparov. He simply had underestimated that the IBM team could have been so eager to trick him just to win (for American standards) a fantastic recompense, the so and so medal with so and so much dollars. And then the chickened out as fast as they could. Kasparov couldn't believe his eyes! Because now it was 1-1 after two matches and he had speculated on a third. But Kasparov looks now like the 'Zauberlehrling' that is the one who learned the tricks from the devil (economy, money) and who now couldn't understand why he had lost control. Kramnik indeed had time enough to prepare his strategy. It was one of a calculated loss of controll. Basically this is the same what boxers do when they fake a knockout. On fairs they also have these phials with the red fluid in their nose... If you know what I mean. But apart from chess, I agree with you. Money is no real danger for one's character. <g> > but it does call into question how we respond to promotional actions >pornographically ( i mean our base emotions, not sex) when we talk about clock >speed of chips, number of processors in a reductionist way and disregard other >valid but non-merchandisable criteria like efficiency of algorithyms, or what >does a change in node- search speed actually mean in a specific case, ie the >machine is finding something useful to look at, so maybe i'll get a useful >result instead of some bit-blasting GIGO. I doubt that the programmers even keep it in a diary. Otherwise the debates here would be full of such topics. They have enough to do with the new hardware of the year and some fiddling with their books to prepare the next games against certain programs. I don't know what they do the whole day long. They simply don't talk about. Chrilly Donninger was honest enough to admit that such debates in the internet were boring. I fear that the reason is a misunderstanding. Discussion in one's field are not only fun but also an intellectual joy for every human spirit. Even the lonely man on the top will find some topics to satisfy his curiosity. But perhaps he prefers to keep it anonymously because flame wars are so time consuming. Rolf Tueschen > > > >On January 23, 2003 at 12:31:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 23, 2003 at 12:02:30, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>if there is 'worship of a product' that is not a function of human need but of >>>sponsorship. >>>one of ibm s greatest successes in the deep blue saga was to convince a lot of >>>poor rubes that their company was an internet company, in order to market their >>>stock at a higher multiplier. >> >>Right, and sponsorship is proportionally combined with the greed for profit. >> >>Kind regards, >>Rolf Tueschen
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.