Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Response to Mig, Adams-DJ case

Author: Manuel Rodriguez Blanco

Date: 16:40:13 02/17/00


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.

thanks for try to explain, i believe you tried to do the best you can do, good
luck,


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



This page took 0.01 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.