Author: stuart taylor
Date: 11:02:25 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 11:41:31, Uri Blass wrote: >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 >> >>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. > >over 100 time slower is not proved and speed is not everything. > >I am not sure if Junior8 of today is going to lose against Junior4.6 of 1997 if >you give Junior8 3 minute per move against 300 minutes per move of Junior4.6 >If you play >3 seconds against 300 seconds then I expect the 300 seconds to win but it is >possible that at long time control things may be different. > >Uri That's obvious S.Taylor
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.