Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:15:20 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 14:53:16, Matthew Hull wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 13:02:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 30, 2003 at 10:58:52, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>>Throwing a game is losing a game, if you don't mind? >>> >>>Picking nits? Taking a draw when a win (percieved win) is handy is throwing the >>>game, Rolf. Don't try to squirm out of it now. >> >> >>Did I play tournament chess? I know what throwing a game would be. And that is >>not throwing. Because the win isn't clear and easy. Nevertheless he "helped" the >>DJ team who are BTW his friends and economical buddies due to the net >>activities, that is the truth. >> >> >> >>>>>>====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?=== >>> >>> >>> >>>From Grandmasters? In 1973? You are wrong. >> >> >>Please keep to get on with our pace, Uri and I have clarified it for hours >>already. And I wrote that I made a typo. (tztztztztz) >> >> >> >>>>Exception Kramnik to whom he lost a match. Period. >>> >>> >>>Not in the ego of GK. That is the point. The motives of GK. You claim money >>>is corrupting the event when in fact, pecuniary interest demands that he smash >>>the machine. You arguments are ridiculous, IMO. >> >> >>Dream on, excuse me I don't want to be responsible if you get peptic ulcer if I >>write you the whole truth. Excuse me. >> >>So you try to make a difference after a lost match when the loser sees himself >>NOT as a loser at all? Look, I was a chessplayer long enough but we're not that >>schizophrenic that we couldn't differentiate losing and winning. That you can't >>run to Mama after you lose and complain, so that then she says that you are the >>Greatest, that is simply part of the game Life if you grow up. Don't give us >>such a ridiculous input here as if chessplayers were nutcases. They have to >>fight enough prejudices yet. >> >>And a show event with a chessmaster is since the 19th century the event of the >>master and NOT one of the machine. Although you have a good point here because >>of course pecuniary interests would tell him to give away a few half points so >>that the advertising campaign has something to show also after the (show) event. > > >Excuse me, Rolf. Real friends (blood brothers so to speak) don't play that way >unless they are the type to corrupt themselves totally with money. Your cynical >assumption that this is a given is kind of sick, I think. Not cynical. I'm just talking about facts. What do you mean with blood brothers? Nonsense. Garry is a bloodsbrother of his mother perhaps but not with someone else. All chess masters are very ego maniacs. > >I'm sure GK said to the boys, "Look, guys. Best of luck to you, but excuse me >while I beat the snot out of this bucket of chips, okay? That's why you pay me. > That's why I do it for you cheap, since we are buds. You want to know how >good/bad this bowl of spaghetti code is? I'll show you exactly how. Agreed? >Okay where do I sign." You make a big mistake, Matt, not only with your wording. Being sick. You are perhaps a bad chessplayer so that you can't imagine how Kasparov could all di at the same time. There is no clear clack and white. Let me explain. Of course he will and shall show them what their baby can do at best. But at the same time he has to consider the marketing. What do you think, is DJ already a GM? If that would be true they had no need to do some PR with Kasparov. But let us assume that DJ is by far _not_ a GM, but perhaps in certain tactical regions he is. Now Kasparov will show exactly this. He will win but he will also lose due to tatical "misfortune". That is not cheating the public. It is exactly for what he's paid for. If you suppose that Kasparov is paid for a clear 6-0 knockout then you are wrong. He's paid for his ability to let a chess game between himself and a dull automat still look like a fantastic chess game. Although in real the machine had no chance at all. For that talent Kasparov is paid. And for his status that allowed a really big event with press and all. But to all experts it's kind of nonsense because Kasparov is by far too strong for such a product. But look again please, Kasparov lost already against the much weaker program GENIUS 2! Kasparov also already lost against the weaker Fritz number one or two. Today we have Fritz 8! Do you understand what I want to say? Rolf Tueschen > >Matt > > >>Or do you expect them to pay for Waterloo? Try to get some practice in today's >>starving companies after Sept 11. >> >>:) >> >>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.