Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 23:40:15 11/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2003 at 22:50:16, Bob Bachman wrote: >On November 05, 2003 at 20:58:31, Sally Weltrop wrote: > >>On November 05, 2003 at 18:37:24, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2003 at 17:24:27, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>Why can't the real interests and passions of the chess (computer) world be given >>>>more consideration, in having Kasparov play something which has already been top >>>>for some time, and is clearly reported to be stronger at next release, such as >>>>Shredder? >>>> >>>>Kasparov already played fritz recently (or was it Kramnik? same thing really) >>>>and both Fritz and Junior achieved the disgusting result (for their rivals) of a >>>>draw each in matches against the two top humans. >>>> >>>>Why do we need more of that now? >>>> >>>>All we want to see now is that Kasparov is ripped to shreds from software, and >>>>that will make us completely sure that computers are better from then on, and >>>>then we won't need any more such matches. So in order to achieve this, wouldn't >>>>it be better to have the best possible program against him? >>>> >>>>Do we have to waste another few years to see what we want to see? Isn't it >>>>public inconvenience? >>>> >>>>If now he either draws again, or wins by half a point, wouldn't it be more >>>>meaningful (showing that Kasparov is not beatable by a machine quite yet) if the >>>>program he plays against is as much as possible stronger (and different) from >>>>the last programs which Kasparov and Kamnik drew with? >>>> >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>All these matches are show events with little sportive value. >>>X3D,Chessbase and Kasparov are interested in maximizing the profit, therefore >>>all those decisions. >>> >>>Thats business... >>> >>>Btw, even a 4-0 result for Fritz wouldn't make us completely sure that computers >>>are better from then on. >>>This is pure nonsense. >> >>I totally agree with u Mike. It's all balogna! It'll only mean something once >>they have a match where GK has to fight for every game to win some money. They >>are so consumed in their own PR and BS that they don't see that the whole thing >>means poop to anyone with brains and as you stated above it's meaningless for >>chess vs computer endeavors. >>> >>>Michael > >People > >I do not get it. If it is all a conspiracy simply do not watch it, or try to >make statements about results of various games or the match. After all the fix >is in. > >If the corporatitons have the fix in, tell me the result now and the reason for >it before the match. I am sorry it is hard for me to think of Chessbase as the >corporation manipulating international chess results, please! I also do not get it. Has anyone in this thread wrote about conspiracy or fixed results? You are wide off the mark. Those matches are getting shorter: 8 games,6 games and now only 4 games. Kasparov has almost nothing to lose. Who can take a 4 games match in 'total virtual reality' seriously? The term used in sports for this is 'exhibition match'. Michael > >Time for an analogy. Do you watch any professional sports? How many athletes >(except golfers and tennis players) are paid purely by results. I therefore >conclude by the logic of this thread that all sports other than tennis and golf >are fixed. > >Stop watching football, ice hockey, soccer etc because it is all manipulated. Do >these kinds of ideas actually occur in other sports. I think not. We are a most >suspicious lot. > >Bob
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.