Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 21:19:07 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 23:50:20, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 22:07:50, Sally Weltrop wrote: > >>I bet if IBM said to GK, We have Deep Blue 2 and DO you want a rematch but at >>these conditions I bet GK would accept and it would mean more than money this >>time around. Touching a GM's pride can do wonders. > >Maybe. Kasparov's disgust of IBM may overwhelm his desire for revenge. Rather >than go through that crap again (in his opinion), he may rather simply decline, >especially given your proposed financial agreement. He may not want revenge. And >let's not forget that IBM is never going to do this. This is true This would be far from a >done deal, even if IBM was willing, and even if there was a large guarenteed sum >of money for Kasparov. > >The problem is that this isn't a general solution. It is one isolated situation >involving only one player. Maybe it gets Kasparov to play under your >circumstances, maybe not. What next? Back to the same old conspiracy theories >about how the GM is throwing the match for entertainment's sake. > >No super GM is going to take part in an event under your proposal, unless there >is some deep seeded hatred or some other rare circumstance from an already rare >pool of talent. No organizer is going to hold its ground, refusing to pay >Kasparov or Kramnik a nice guarenteed sum, in the hopes of chasing some dream of >"real competition." The organizer is in it to make money, and if that means >paying Kasparov half a million dollars just to show up, they'll do it in a heart >beat. > >What motivation does either side have to do this? Look at it from Kasparov's >point of view. He can either: > >A) Play his absolute best chess, and he might get paid for it. Best case, he >gets (say) a million dollars (or whatever the winner gets). > >B) Just show up and play at whatever level he feels like playing at, get paid a >nice appearance fee at the minimum, and best case he gets a million dollars. > >So, no incentive at all for Kasparov. How about the organizer? They can either: > >A) Hope they can be the one exception to the rule "beggers can't be choosers", >beg Kasparov to play for nothing, and worst case scenario Kasparov loses and now >hates the oranizers for giving him such a raw deal, and now we have no more >Kasparov vs. computer matches. Thanks a lot organizers. You jerks. So now the >organizers are jerks and they lost future profits. This idea isn't looking too >good... > >B) Agree to pay Kasparov a nice guarenteed sum, have a match, make some money, >and everyone walks away with more money in their pockets than they came with, >and everyone is happy, and we'll do it again next year, and make more money, and >entertain more fans. This is sounding hard to beat... > >Your idea is an ideal, not reality. It's a pipe dream. It would be wonderful if >every super GM would play like their life was on the line in every game for >free, but it's not going to happen. Work harder for potentially less money? No >thanks. I'll go play in the super GM tournament next month and get a nice >paycheck. In these tournaments no one gets a lump sum up front you have to earn it. Same in this case but I agree with what you're saying as well in the above. Look at the old -timers in baseball. Nutrition,weight training & steroid use was not known then but most of them did much better correspondingly to the cry babies we have in baseball now. What gave them that special pop? It was not money.It was heart and passion. The owners told you what were getting paid and that was the end of it and they paid most of them next to peanuts to what we see today.
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.