![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
Is it not possible to put up good 6 figure sums ONLY for winning? And if they are turned down, then that is a sign that the human believes he will lose anyway?
If you are talking about non-handicap games, we already know that the top players who have commented on this expect that they would lose a match to Rybka. I haven't heard any top player state that he believes he can compete with Rybka on even terms. So there's not much point to trying to raise such money for a match victory just to see that no one is interested in playing without a sizable guarantee.
1). How can you give then an extreme incentive to win?
2). Perhaps we can include handicap games (according to agreement. Even include Knight odd game with GM as black, to make him feel he might manage), but the GM has to win the match in order to get the big sum, otherwise he only gets enough to well cover his time and expenses and a bit more. And if he so openly doesn't intend to win, so good bye.
3).You don't think that Kasparov and Kramnik were paid to NOT win, a few years ago?
2). Perhaps we can include handicap games (according to agreement. Even include Knight odd game with GM as black, to make him feel he might manage), but the GM has to win the match in order to get the big sum, otherwise he only gets enough to well cover his time and expenses and a bit more. And if he so openly doesn't intend to win, so good bye.
3).You don't think that Kasparov and Kramnik were paid to NOT win, a few years ago?
Any prize fund for a match with a top player should include a very large difference in his pay between winning and losing. The terms have to be such that winning is a realistic possibility. I don't believe that any of the computer-human matches were "fixed" like this, but in general I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I see no evidence of those matches being thrown, the results were pretty much in line with expectations, and the parties involved had too much to lose if any such fraud came out, as it usually does.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I don't understand your line of thinking here. If one is offered a nice 6 figure prize if they can win a match best out of 5 (for example), why wouldn't they take it? Expecting to lose is irrelevant. Probabilistically the chances of winning a match are good. The expected value is: prize fund * chance the person wins - chance the person loses * embarrassment/time/hassle factor. If it's greater than zero they should play. People play the lottery all the time and I'm sure a large portion of the people playing don't expect to win. And the odds of some top GM beating Rybka in a 5 game match are better than the odds of you or I winning the lottery.
We're talking about top professional players who won't play a match unless they rate to make what other top players have made for such matches. So it's the expected return that matters, as your formula shows, and for the top five or so that has to be a six figure sum for them to consider it.
"And the odds of some top GM beating Rybka in a 5 game match are better than the odds of you or I winning the lottery. "
Yes, but the opportunity cost in time and effort is incomparable. A professional chess player at that level is constantly preparing for the next tournament or WC match. Taking a sideline to prepare for a match he has no realistic chance of winning, losing valuable preparation -- or rest -- time, which might adversely affect his performance in a tournament with real money on the line he could have won... that is asking a lot. It would require a substantial baseline prize that he would be guaranteed even in the event of a 6-0 loss.
But then Larry K's problem comes in: if you make the minimum prize too large, then it becomes tempting for the GM to take the match and not prepare at all, rather just play a bunch of games, get smashed in an uninteresting and unconstructive way, and take the minimum prize. So the guaranteed prize for victory would have to be *even greater* to stimulate the GM to try seriously to win. And there is nobody willing to put up the kind of money that would satisfy these criteria.
Yes, but the opportunity cost in time and effort is incomparable. A professional chess player at that level is constantly preparing for the next tournament or WC match. Taking a sideline to prepare for a match he has no realistic chance of winning, losing valuable preparation -- or rest -- time, which might adversely affect his performance in a tournament with real money on the line he could have won... that is asking a lot. It would require a substantial baseline prize that he would be guaranteed even in the event of a 6-0 loss.
But then Larry K's problem comes in: if you make the minimum prize too large, then it becomes tempting for the GM to take the match and not prepare at all, rather just play a bunch of games, get smashed in an uninteresting and unconstructive way, and take the minimum prize. So the guaranteed prize for victory would have to be *even greater* to stimulate the GM to try seriously to win. And there is nobody willing to put up the kind of money that would satisfy these criteria.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill