Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 06:32:02 11/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2003 at 22:30:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 18, 2003 at 12:26:18, margolies,marc wrote: > >>Hi! >>Thanks for your response. I was not sure the arbitor could see the board until >>you told me so. Might you know, doc, are the 3D goggles used in this event a >>'shutter system' or some sort of color-coded affair? (I wonder if this bears >>upon the arbitor's ability to see the colored pieces viz. orientation.) >>Regarding Gari's behavior, it's clear we see tha same act differently. You say >>he complained like a loser (my interpretation) and I say exactly so! because >>injured winners do not seek remediation. >>l > >I believe they are the classic "shutter solution". Based on the fact that >they had an IR link to the 3d system. The only reason for a link would be >to synch the LCD "shutters" with the refresh rate of the monitor. > >If you think about it, it was a stupid idea. The 3d added _nothing_ to >the game that playing on a real board wouldn't produce, except for the >potential for eyestrain and headaches. > >There are places where 3d stuff is great. This is _not_ one of them. > >I believe this is correct also because more than once, the ESPN camera showed >the X3d monitor, and the pieces looked "fuzzy" when looking over Kasparov's >shoulder, exactly what would happen if two images are interlaced for a >viewing separation of about 4.5" or so (the distance between human eyes, >necessary for depth perception). > > > > > >> >>On November 18, 2003 at 10:19:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 17, 2003 at 22:15:17, margolies,marc wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Martin (btw i love your checkers prog) >>>> >>>> I think Gari was very correct to dress down the Match Arbiter, Albert Vassar, >>>>regarding the conditions of game 2. >>>>a> it is the Arbiter's Responsibility to ensure that the playing conditions are >>>>correct-- and as Seirawan pointed out--- discomforts are only suffered by the >>>>Human side because the Machine 'feels nothing.' >>>>b>Since the Technology was part of the match, the machine should have suffered a >>>> time penalty for operator error, in my opinion. >>>>c> MOST IMPORTANTLY, it shows that arbiter Vasser never put on the stupid X3D >>>>goggles to look at the board! What kind of arbiter at a chess match in virtual >>>>reality cannot see the board ever! This is the rudest hoax I can imagine. >>> >>>You _can_ see the board without the glasses. It looks a little blurred because >>>of the two interlaced frames, but you can see the board just fine. Seeing the >>>colors is even easier. >>> >>>BTW this is _not_ a "virtual reality" setup. This is just a 3-d graphical >>>display. Virtual reality is something else entirely. >>> >>> >>>>Morever, In game 1 when I saw some of the TV coverage, Vassar just sat in a >>>>chair where he could not observe anything-- and I did not see a pair of the >>>>stupid glasses supplied to him either. He looked rather funny to me, like the >>>>character comedian Chris Elliot played in the movie "13 Ghosts," and he only >>>>needed a fake claw hand to complete the comedy. >>>>Of course Gari would only complain because he lost (and this does Look like sour >>>>grapes) but had Gari won, would this Arbitorial Malfeasance have caused >>>>considerable injury to necessitate a Public grievance? >>>>-Marc >>>> >>> >>> >>>The real question is, "had he won, would he have complained so much about >>>the reversed board?" The answer is most likely "no". >>> >>> >>> >>>> Computer chess is not the place for X3D. Doom 3 on a 12' projecter is the place for X3D :) anthony
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.