Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 05:20:24 07/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2003 at 07:39:49, David H. McClain wrote: >I agree with GM Yates and Uri. > >Chessbase needs to find some "new blood" for these matches, people like Polgar >or Radjabov or even Ponamariov. Offer them the money and let them be creative >in their own way, win or lose. Let chessbase tune their programs any way they >want to play these new players. In my opinion a match like this would be of >much more interest than a forgone conclusion as to what Kasparov will do: more >afraid of losing than wanting to win. The money should be assessed more to the >advantage of the winner, not ~ $600,000 if you lose or draw then the incentive >to win will be there. How seriously can you interpret a match and the analysis >afterwards when you make over half a million dollars to draw it? I am not >downing Kasparov's skills at all, just his methods and his incentive. Agreed, Why not Anand? > >If any of these super GMs played any program that was strictly bought "off the >shelf" and not specially tuned by their programmers running on 8 processors the >GMs would win "hands down." To give the names of Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs and >Fritz to the same programs that played the GMs and insinuate this is what the >public buys is deceiving. They are no more the same program than a Volkswagon >is a Porsche 911. > >Chessmaster would be crucified by these super GMs in any configuration at >40/120. The "off the shelf" programs are too predictable. There are many >examples of this in the archives of ICC.com and very few, if any, were played >against super GMs @ 40/120. CM would be good > >To prove this bring what you have and offer a super GM on ICC.com the money to >play him @ 40/120 and see what happens.
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.