Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:12:09 02/03/03
On February 03, 2003 at 09:55:27, Drexel,Michael wrote: >http://www.worldchessrating.com/522122978.html?714691312983632 > >and something new (old) on GK - DB 2 match > >http://www.worldchessrating.com/522133171.html?554511829745024 Thanks Michael for the extremely interesting links. My Thesis about Kasparov (against computers) ============================================ Many messages have been written about the topic and I could write a whole book, but I guess that nobody wants final proofs. But everybody wants ideas and guidelines. So I make my case here although it's impossible to prove it in a short paragraphe. Also I see Kasparov having the duty to give sufficient explanations for his own contradictions. 1.) Kasparov's reasoning isn't sound I accuse Kasparov of having supported the so called Man or Mankind against Machine ballyhoo. Nobody has authorized Kasparov to play in the name of mankind. He made his personal deals with IBM in 1997 and Kasparov got a whole lot of money for his play. In special in comments about the 6th game Kasparov explains that he played intentiously a problematic line, where for instance the GENIUS book had a "no" besides Nxe6, and so he wanted to know if DB2 also wouldn't play it. Yes, for sure you do that in the last crucial game of a little show match. Because all what you have is scientific interest. Only, when you lose, the you make clear that you were already out of match after game two!!! Isn't that a contradiction? Also, in one of the links above there is a quote from Alburt. He said, that you don't shout at a kid in a simul either. What does that mean? That a computer in a show event is like a kid in a simul? If yes, then how could Kasparov claim that it was a heroic match Man vs. Machine? Where is the responsibility? Also in view of that high motto how could one step out of the match already after game 2? So either Kasparov has a case against DB2 and IBM, although what case, when he got so much money, or he has none and then he can play serious chess against Junior now in 2003. Altough Kasparov again gets a whole lot of money, much too much money IMO, he simply doesn't play his best chess. In game 3 he comments, that he saw the draw, but he went for the win and oversaw the next move of the machine. Is that typical for one of the best players? There are no excuses. Either I see winning lines or not. But if I only see a draw, then I take the draw. If however I saw winning lines and I blunder I am simply not the good player I am paid for. Period. Then I heard that Kasparov had called the programmers arrogant. Maybe. But then we know that arrogant is often the impression people give who are timid. I mean if one player on the world is arrogant then his name is Kasparov! Arrogant until irrational dimensions. It's simply not sound to behave like this after having digested so much money. It's incredibly bad behaviour. If Kasparov thinks so low about computers, as he said after the first three games, then why the hell does he promote them in a show event? For the money in case I'm allowed to ask? Kasparov is correct, comps are dumb 2400 players at best. But is it honest to suck cash 1 million dollars for a little show event? Why not let Eduard Nemeth 2100 (!) or some starving German GM play the match who's in real need? I always thought Kasparov had enough money and would never play computers again. How odd the whole presentation. I see no logic in Kasparov's arguments. He lost to DB2 due to the stuff in game 2 after that he was out of the match. Then in 2003 he plays a program over 100 times slower than DB2, agains loses and again begins to behave unconfortably. Although it's just a promotion for the Israeli program. He says that he was winning in principal all three games. Next time I will organize a show match against GOD and Gary will lose all six games. Let's see what he has to argue then... That I helped GOD? Till then, Rolf Tueschen
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.