Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: More facts about the Junior - Adams match

Author: Mig

Date: 07:39:28 02/17/00


Hello Everyone,

This is Mig Greengard, also of KasparovChess.com and, by the way, the mystery VP
mentioned by my good friend, basketball star Shay Bushinsky. I thought I would
add some comments and clarifications to what was unquestionably a total disaster
and also a very emotional situation for Shay and Amir, as well as Mickey Adams.

We've all been through about four hours of non-stop phone calls around the world
regarding this episode tonight. [Now last night, I wrote this late last night
but didn't want to post till I heard from Amir and/or Shay.] It was a lose-lose
situation for all concerned and Shay and Amir lost worse than the rest.

Before I go on it's VERY important to me to say that GM Adams behaved at all
times in a very sportsmanlike manner and in no way insisted on anything
unreasonable at any time. I don't really expect the audience here to see things
from a human player's point of view (!), but I do wish to stress that he was
accomodating until things just got out of hand at a very late hour.

Criticism, and there is plenty to go around, should be centered on
KasparovChess.com and our lack of proper documentation for the players. When
things broke down we had no real rule book to refer the players to, no list of
contingency plans or time limits for how long a communications breakdown should
be to be considered a forfeit, etc. So instead of simply referring to a rulebook
we had a nightmare of phonecalls and recrimination. As embarrassing as this poor
preparation is for me and all of us, I prefer it to seeing GM Adams undeservedly
criticized or rumors of conspiracy floated.

As for human players, most of them are going to blame, and not necessarily
incorrectly, ANY AND ALL technology-related delays on us. That's because as
organizers we have an obligation to make sure things are working for each
player. If it's not, the levels of stress involved are not conducive to decent
chess, in a human. If both players had been human I believe everyone would have
had a different attitude. Discrimination against the machine? Probably, but as
it gets later and later, as nerves and five hours of tension build, a human is
at a severe disadvantage against a computer. Plus, it was Junior's connection
that went down. Adams, due to his ongoing match against Seirawan, was unable to
change dates without breaking his commitment to the organizers and sponsor
there, so really had no choice. Starting the second game at 7 p.m. with no
guarantee that there would be no further problems was not a serious option.
Eventually a deadline had to be set, he could not be expected to sit there
through dinner time on the edge of his seat waiting for the call to start play.

I don't want to air KC's dirty laundry in public as such, but actually I think
this forum could be a good one to get more ideas about how to solve such things
in the future and I hope Shay and Amir won't mind my butting in here on their
home turf. Plus, I agree with just about everything Shay says, I just want to
provide the full picture. More below.

On February 16, 2000 at 19:38:09, Shay Bushinsky wrote:

>Dear people,
>
>At this moment, I regret to say that my own company has decided to
>discriminate our Deep Junior project and to declare
>Michael Adams at his insistence to be the victor of our match.
>
>This arbitrary decision was taken in spite of the ruling of the tournament
>official referee, Mr. Boris Postovisky, and was explained as the product
>of the inconvenience caused to Adams as a result of the delay incurred by
>our ISP slow connection which obviously was beyond our control.

I really disagree with crediting Adams for insisting on anything. He was more
than willing to play the second game (and continue the first, he was not the one
who was cut off) until the delay ran into the evening. Unlike some of the
prima-donna GMs out there I found him very accomodating over the course of our
four phone conversations tonight. At the end he was simply hungry and tired and
wasn't going to play, and basically didn't understand that if his opponent
couldn't show up for two hours why he wasn't then forfeited.

I should also add that due to the late hour in Russia IA Postovsky was not
present or observing the match in question and that due to his lack of Russian
Adams was unable to present his side of the situation. But of course playing the
game is always the best solution and if Adams wouldn't have been at such a large
disadvantage by the time things were ready, it should have been played.

>In previous circumstances, when for instance Grandmaster Milos has disconnected
>for over 20 minutes during his game with Morozevich no forfeit was declared
>and the match was resumed.
>
>All above despite the fact that Mr. Adams himself had trouble connecting
>and the match was delayed for over 90 minutes mainly because of his
>computers not being able to connect.

True, but the bottom line is that unless we consider them intentional delays, KC
as organizer has a responsibility to avoid these technical problems. I was in
Bermuda for his first match and all went well, and I take responsibility for not
leaving things in sufficient order for them to avoid problems in the second
round. We tested everything with that same computer and had no problems at all.
That's technology. And when both players are human, both are getting tired and
nervous; no advantage is being gained by a long delay.

>This is a very low point in our career as developers of Deep Junior
>and we apologize to all our fans and to the spectators who expected us to
>play a decent match.

Hey, Junior played a great match and everyone here knows it. And very few people
wanted to see you play Garry more than me. It would have been great to see and
incredibly great for the site.

>It is a great embarrassment to the company I work for and to myself especially
>towards Amir Ban my partner and friend who is just an impartial participant in
>this event as any of the other players.
>
>Mr. Adams who initially agreed to our draw offer in the adjourned game (lost
>position for him) and was willing to continue and play a second game
>until he changed his mind and said that after speaking to a VP of our company
>was led to understand that he can claim a forfeit.

Adams did accept the draw offer in the first game, and it will be recorded as a
draw. (He was of course completely lost, although Junior was exhibiting strange
time management as Amir mentions in his post.) The forfeit was the second game,
in which a delay of several hours took place. Adams never said he would continue
to wait all night and play whenever Junior was ready. He said he would play and
waited. By the time of the final phone call, and Carol Jarecki recorded the
clock times of the delays and many phone calls, it was almost two hours after
the first game was interrupted and he had just about had it. After four or five
rounds of calls by me to Shay in Israel and Adams in Bermuda, he said that he
wasn't going to play at all unless it could happen before 7pm (maybe it was 6pm,
I don't remember if we were talking NY time or Bermuda time). So I talked to
Shay again and asked how long it would take to get Junior back on the net and as
always he was honest and said he wasn't sure, that it could take 35 minutes to
get the modem installed, etc. He was the first to mention the word "forfeit" as
the potential consequence of the excessive delay. So when I talked to Mickey
again I said that in my opinion, if they couldn't get online before the hour it
would probably be considered a forfeit. No, I'm not an arbiter, but common sense
said that we couldn't expect him to sit there with no idea what was going on for
so long. Respect for all the players is very important. Adams in no way pushed
for a forfeit.

In the end, I think seeing Adams play at that point, until nine at night or
later, and get slaughtered would not have left a very good taste in anyone's
mouth. And that assumes no further technical problems. If Junior's clock had
been ticking the entire time it would have lost game two on time. Of course it
wasn't Junior's fault, it worked great as Adams (and Illescas) found out. Amir
and Shay are clearly victims here, but no sword proved sharp enough to cut the
Gordian knot presented us.

To sum up, please reserve your accusations and criticism for me and the rest of
the KC staff that never found the time to put together a comprehensive rulebook
that would have avoided the worst of this situation. The rulebook would have
something similar to "If one player disconnects for whatever reason and is
unable to resume play for XX minutes, that player will forfeit that game."
(Adjourning to another day would potentially be incredibly unfair depending on
the situation on the board and/or clock. Playing the next day was impossible in
this case regardless.) So Junior would most likely have been forfeited under the
rules. But it is to our great shame that no such rule exists and that it took
something as horrible as this to get it done.

Suggestions about what this rulebook should contain are welcome. Professional
chess does have a future on the internet, but we have a ways to go and a lot to
learn.

Saludos, Mig

VP Content & Editor-in-chief
KasparovChess.com
mig@kasparovchess.com




This page took 0.02 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.