Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:04:24 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 08:12:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On February 18, 2000 at 03:56:03, Mig wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Personally I think they have tremendous public appeal. Man against machine ....
>>> Remember Deep Blue and all the publicity and public interest that was
>>> generated. I think the Sponsors/GM's are overlooking a big opportunity to cash
>>> in by not playing against comps. But they have to have the courage to play.
>>> The truth is time is running out on the select human GM club. They should belly
>>> up to the bar while it is still open because closing time is getting closer
>>> every day.
>>
>>What many people fail to understand is that many GMs actively dislike playing
>>public games, even exhibition games, against computers. There are many different
>>reasons and few stem from simply not wanting to lose. They lose to other humans
>>all the time. One is that they don't enjoy the games nearly as much because the
>>entire psychological element is gone. The exciting competitive drive is
>>practically irrelevant, you just don't get as juiced up to play a machine.
>
>
>I don't buy that. Log on to ICC and do a "search crafty <GM of your choice>".
>If they don't like to play public games vs computers, what are all those games
>against almost every active GM that are played on ICC in front of huge crowds?
>Often 10-20-30 games at one sitting? With guys like Kamsky carrying on a
>running kibitz session while playing?
>
>I agree they like the psychological aspects. But they play silicon _all_ the
>time and so seem quite happy to do without that aspect of the game...
This is absolutely true, but it isn't the whole truth. First of all, Mig is
correct in that many GMs refuse to play computers, and a simple look at the
notes of many clearly states so. Also, when they play Crafty or any either
silicon opponent on ICC, all they can really lose are a few cyber rating points.
Considering that their ratings are adjusted after each and every game, if they
lose 50 rating points (or more) in such a match, thay can easily make up for it
of the next hour or so. Take those same players and same computer opponents and
place them in a tournament that will affect their professional ratings, and
their eagerness may be dampened. Now tell them that a machine may keep them out
of the money and boy will you see new set of reactions. I'd like to think I'm
wrong, but I suspect that for the most part I'm not. Take a look at the US
situation. Didn't you say that the USCF allows computers to participate in
tournaments now, but that this permission was pointless as the tournament
organizers are the ones stonewalling the machines now? Why is that? I don't
think it's because the organizers are all narrow-minded bigots; I think it's
because a number of high-rated players made it clear that they would find an
event that wouldn't have their rent money taken by a Pentium III (or whatever).
Look at the classic active chess tournament in Aubervilliers, France. It was a
welcome place for computers, and it was fascinating to see their progress in the
rankings; that is, until Genius came in tied for 2-3 one year, and suddenly I
never heard of another program playing there.
I don't know if the only solution is specific man vs. machine events, but I fear
that as the machines get stronger, attempt to include machines in normal opens
will not work. Only events specifically advertised as including computers may
work, and even then, special circumstances may eventually be needed to
accomodate for the machines. Still, this is for the future, for a look at the
results in the Israeli league has shown that they are still a ways from
clobbering everyone left and right, even if they are already clearly
competitive. Personally, I'd like to see a healthily large round-robin (12+
players) with one or several of the PCs playing. I'd even like to see a
challenge sent out to the IMs and GMs who deem themselves as expert
computer-killers so that no one was uncomfortable about the event. You could
even do it with several games between the opponents so that a player 'caught by
surprise' would have the opportunity to extract revenge. :-)
Albert Silver
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Calling them chicken is beside the point. They have almost nothing to gain and
>>since everyone still makes a big deal out of it when they lose, (Rebel - Anand,
>>Garry - Deep Blue, etc.) there is only the money. So they play for the money and
>>sometimes they don't. But saying, "just take your money and shut up" is
>>demeaning. These guys are dedicated professionals playing a game they love and
>>computers have nothing to do with why they love it.
>>
>>Man against machine is a hot ticket and I hope we will continue to find players
>>who are eager to play them. We might have to move to longer time controls,
>>however. While several GMs told me Illescas played poorly, Adams is Adams and he
>>was busted...
>>
>>Saludos, Mig
>>
>>mig@kasparovchess.com
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.