Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:33:43 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 11:12:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 That is news to you??? :) > >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? I think that everyone needs to roll their pants legs up to the knees. bull**** is getting _very_ deep from the K camp. I would _hope_ that his statement is a simple misquote. If not, then I don't know what conclusion one might draw from it... However, I proposed this as a probable explanation if you recall, never for a minute buying that "finger-slip" clap-trap excuse. I believe he played it because he tried it against computers and won every time. > >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. I have no idea what he is thinking, and don't really care. It seems implausible that he would disdain a draw, in a complex position, low on time, to go for a win that he did not have time to analyze with any accuracy. It just boggles the mind. And my own conclusion is "I don't believe a word of any of the various explanations he has offered, either for the DB match nor this match." He simply can't be believed when he makes orthogonal statements repeatedly. > >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. Classic "pot, kettle". :) > >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? Why do you think? I'd arm-wrestle superman for $1,000,000.00 :) > 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? I don't think the comps are that week today. But his dishonesty speaks volumes. Out one side of his mouth "they are terribly weak", but when promoting a potential match with a $1,000,000.00 payout, "this machine is stronger than deep blue." If he _really_ wants to get rich, he ought to learn how to sell bull**** for fertilizer. He has the ability to generate a fortune. :) >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. Newsflash: I have _never_ lost any kind of a match "in principle". :) > >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 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.