Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 10:25:52 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 12:45:02, Terry Presgrove wrote: >On February 17, 2000 at 11:48:53, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On February 17, 2000 at 10:39:28, Mig wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >>I don't know if there was a rulebook to refer to, but there were arbiters, and >>(at Kasparov's insistence, I think) the matter was referred to the chief arbiter >>Postovisky. I noticed that your statement on KC.com was vague on the fact that >>he made a definite ruling, and on what that ruling was, so let's make it public >>here: Postovisky ruled that the first game is a draw and the second game should >>be played. >> >>The chain of events is that KC management wanted to forfeit the match before >>Postovisky made the ruling. After the ruling, when we convened for the telecon, >>as you remember my first question was if the arbiter's ruling changes KC's mind >>about forfeit, and the answer was NO. >> >> >>>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. >>> >> >>The timeline simply did not happen this way. In Bermuda time, the draw was >>agreed around 4:40, and we said we would start in about 20 minutes. I posted to >>this effect on this board. Communication looked normal at the time, and KC >>wanted the break in order to install the timestamp feature. >> >>As far as I know, we were ready to start around 5 pm, and the only reason this >>didn't happen is that at that time Adams was asking for a a forfeit. According >>to my timekeeping, there was less than 40 minutes between the conclusion of a >>draw and the demand for forfeit. So far as I know, we were ready at the time to >>play, but this was not asked. It was not so much "Can you start now, or you >>forfeit ?" but simply "You forfeit". >> >>So there were no evening hours involved here for Adams. It was pretty much over >>a few minutes after 5 pm for him, and while I have no first-hand knowldedge >>direct knowledge of who was driving this I didn't see any real interest in >>Bermuda in whether we can play. >> >>Amir > > > This is a very sad day for computer chess and in point of fact chess period. > You got screwed and there is little to be said that would give comfort. I > would hope that at a very minimum they would return your entree fee and give > assurances that DJ would be invited to the next Kasparov event of your choice! > Assuming they can get their act together -,) > > TP I heard that Deep Junior is going to play many more events done by KC and that Deep Junior is going to play the next 2 KC Grandprix. The only thing that remains is to fix a Deep Junior - Winner of KC Grand prix... Alvaro
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.