Author: Manuel Rodriguez Blanco
Date: 16:30:38 02/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 10:39:28, Mig wrote: First, i want to declare myself like a fan yours, but now i most tell you that you make a mistake in not prevent this case, but the BIG mistake, the BIG problem was the decicions you make for correct first little mistake compare with the second one. Here are some of your points that i want to discuss: - Agree with: is a lose-lose situation. - You said: "I don't really expect the audience here to see things from a human player's point of view (!)" This is a computer chess forun but not for that you can said we can not see the situation from human player's point of view - You said: "If both players had been human I believe everyone would have had a different attitude" Of course beggining for you, or you would dare to forfeited one human side in the same circunstances?? i am 100% sure that in the same circunstances you never forfeite one of the side - You said: "Discrimination against the machine? Probably" Come on, only probably, you know perfectly that is a Big discrimination. that is without doubt - You said: "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". I know that will be the gold argument, but think on it, resistances and no nerves is part of the advantage of all computers, like is its advantage 5 0 games, like is its advantages short tactics, etc. Then when DJ tie a match you will forfeite DJ again because in 5 0 games human is at a severe disadvantage??. I understand your point here, but you said is a loose-loose problem and let Adams play tired with DJ is a better soluction than forfeite DJ, dont you think? - You said: it was Junior's connection that went down. Yes, lets supose was Junior's connection, ok is junior's connection BUT junior's fault??, and if we reverse the case are you sure you will forfeited Adams? i really doubt that. - You said: "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. Then organice a match after tourney between Grand Prix winner and DJ same condicion of GP tourney like Henriquez suggest. - You said: "In the end, I think seeing Adams play at that point, until nine at night orlater, and get slaughtered would not have left a very good taste in anyone's mouth". yes is bad taste, but is HONEY compare with what we all have in our mouth now, was a loose-loose situation, and i think this bad taste was the less bad soluccion. MRB. >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 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.