Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:55:11 02/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2006 at 04:20:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On February 03, 2006 at 19:29:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 03, 2006 at 17:02:46, Torstein Hall wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2006 at 17:47:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On February 02, 2006 at 07:06:23, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>> >>>>>Peter Swidler on Computers >>>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2897 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Chess and computer: what is the interest other than the money? >>>>> >>>>>You mean playing against the computer? >>>>> >>>>>Yes. >>>>> >>>>>For me there is no particular interest. I never have been offered any serious >>>>>matches, but, in general, I think playing against computers is not very >>>>>exciting. Computers play so well these days that, to have a chance to win, you >>>>>have to work very hard – and work hard at things that probably will be counter >>>>>productive when you play against humans – so it probably will harm your chess a >>>>>little. >>>>> >>>>>If there is no financial incentive, I don’t see why there is any interest at >>>>>all. You can try competing with computers at calculation, but this is not very >>>>>wise, if you want to win. So, basically you have to train in playing closed >>>>>positions, keeping it as simple and as non-tactical as possible. It is possible >>>>>but there is not much fun in that. Playing the computer – I mean proper seven >>>>>hour games – I never saw any attraction in that, apart from money. So I don’t >>>>>really play against the computers. I use computers, as we all do, for help when >>>>>analyzing, as a background check. You analyze and have the computer running in >>>>>the background, to keep your analysis relatively blunder free. And that’s about >>>>>it. " >>>> >>>>You could also say "if there is no financial incentive to beat other humans, I >>>>don't see why there is any interest at all". It's what being a professional >>>>means. >>>> >>>>Vas >>> >>>It must be boring to be professional, if they only ever play for the love of >>>money. But I can not imagine that is the attitude most professional chess >>>players has. I even doubt Peter Svidler feel that way... >>> >>>Torstein >> >>If you and Vas speak about it, it cant be off-topic, so please let me >>participate. I wished you two wouldnt twist what Svidler said. He said that _if_ >>you weaken your own chess against a computer THEN only the money could be the >>incentive to play - > >If playing against computers paid the bills, then no doubt Mr. Swidler would be >worried that playing against humans might interfere with his computer-beating >skills. I don't see anything wrong with this - money is a big source of >motivation, although for many people it's not the only one. > >Vas Vas, I'm a bit astonished that you really insist on your logical failure. Cant you see that for him (Svidler) the money isnt the main factor but his chess? You twist his main argument around. You want to add that if he could make a living out of weakening his chess then he would enjoy doing it? In genral I would say no from my experience with many people who have that chess vice and who prefer to live on welfare level but who would never make a normal living even if they have a certain education. So in general I would say, no, Svidler and all others would only see their chess. But you could have an argument if for a lot of money the player would intentionally spend a year or more outside the normal chess circus just to makemoney against computers. Although I doubt that potentional Wch candidates would do it other than GM Roman type of guys who have becoming older, I could still imagine that this would make sense. So, yes, in such rare cases where someone can make a million dollars he could spend a year of his normal chess career. Bt all others and only for 10 or 20000 dollars certainly shouldnt and wouldnt do that. For them chess is their destiny and NOT some thousands that they well could make in a couple of Opens. Vas, honestly, it is a bit indecent from your side, to argue this way against your former collegues when actually you have gone commercial yourself and certainly couldnt make a single dollar out of your own chess talents anymore. ou should well know that your GM collegues have at least your own dedication for their chess but probably even stronger. - Having said that I add that I think that you know that I found it a bit, well, strange, how you at first made the present of your first version of Rybka and then overnight went commercial and then used the same people with their present as new beta-testers after they bought the second version. It smells a bit, well, "fishy" IMO but then I'm perhaps a hopeless idealist. :) Thanks for being a nice advocat of the devil so far... > >because I ask you two non-grandmasters - in difference to >>you two a Grandmaster of Chess _can_ weaken his chess qualities; proof Peter >>Svidler! Of course for weaker players than a GM, this weakening is almost >>impossible. So that is the reason why so many non-GM are busy in computerchess. >>I cant remember when I weakened my play the last time, I get better and better >>every day! ;)
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.