Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:00:35 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2003 at 22:30:38, Matthew Hull wrote: >Negative. He is paid because he is strong, _the_ strongest. That's what is >wanted. That is what is hired. His reputation is on the line. That is wrong and I can prove it. Kasparov is possibly the strongest human chess player _against_ other human players, although I doubt it because Kramnik is stronger, but this is not the question here. It's true that Kasparov is very strong against other human players in human chess. But he's not the strongest player against computers! Simply because his lack of self-control. Pulling faces is both impolite and against the known chess ethic. No matter how authentic it might be in the eyes of the spectators. And more - against computers it's _absolutely_ worthless! The sole reason for Kasparov being the most wanted partner in computer chess show events is the intention to make the public believe that the strongest human player is automatically the strongest computer opponent - which is provenly false! >His reputation >suffered badly from DB2. If he throws games, then he has dishonored his >contract, his principles, his reputation and his soul. That's just not >happening with this guy, IMO. I didn't say that he throws games. Keep your data straight, please. But it's true that all show event partners among human chess players have 'helped' the programs to win some points - from the beginning on of such show events. Here is a sentence nobody can deny: ====If it's true that only now the commercially available chess programs are strong enough to win games against the best humans, then how could it happen that already 30 years ago the first programs and board computers won points?=== Please explain that fact! How could it happen if the human chessplayers didn't help? With strength alone that could never have happened because the first programs were stupid as hell. But again prove me wrong. I wait for your answers. > >IBM took a risk in hiring the strongest guy in the world to play their monster. >They gambled and won. You can bet he was not throwing games then. The >situation is the same. He has something to prove. What should he have to prove? We are not talking about human chess. We are talking about computerchess. And there he is definitely NOT the best opponent, perhaps the best partner - in economical terms of business, yes. And a final sentence you can't deny too: ===Why could Kasparov prove what he's worth in chess (computer version!) if he's now playing a program that is factor x plus a dozen aspects WEAKER than DB2? How could a little boy prove that he was stronger than me, if I hit him a bloody nose and he _then_ began to pester my little baby sister?=== Please make sure that you use strictly logical arguments in your response. :) Rolf Tueschen > >Regards, >Matt
This page took 0.01 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.