Author: Howard Exner
Date: 08:01:20 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2000 at 10:20:34, vitor wrote: >On February 18, 2000 at 08:16:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 18, 2000 at 04:15:47, Mig wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2000 at 01:18:27, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>One thing for sure: in the GM-challenge I NEVER would allow a GM to lose >>>>on time because of Internet problems. You just start to look for solutions >>>>the game can be continued. Maybe the next day, if not possible the day after >>>>and so on. Internet problems are nobody's fault and therefore nobody should >>>>be a victim of that. >>>> >>>>IMO game-1 should be continued by all means and the second game should be >>>>played thereafter. Anything else is highly unfair. The same applies in case >>>>things would have happened the opposite. >>>> >>>>A VERY bad decission Mig! >>> >>>I wish we'd had you on the line last night! I'm sure Piket, Svidler, Kasparov, >>>Adams, their arbiters, and the sponsor, arbiter, and opponent in Adams' Bermuda >>>match would have been delighted to see a postponement till the next day, >>>changing the days of the other games. >> >>Then answer this: Had Kasparov been unable to connect against Adams, what >>would have happened? OK. Suppose it wasn't Kasparov. Suppose it was some >>lesser GM against Adams. And _he_ couldn't connect because his ISP had been >>attacked by one of these denial-of-service attacks? And after you answer both >>of those, why is your answer different for Deep Junior, which is _obviously_ >>will be. I think _that_ is the thing most of us simply "don't get"... >> > >Inconveniencing a GM or unfairly forfeiting a computer? That is the question. If >you're smart, the choice should be easy. Here's the reality. You can get a >program to play anyone, anytime, anyplace, for free. You can't say that about >the GM, 2700 elo no less. It's true that a program can be played anytime and a GM not. But isn't there more to consider here? This was a public competion. People expect a show. The freely available chess program is the product of human toil and ingenuity. Adams may be in the top 10 in the world but the chess programmers of Junior are among (Deep Junior perhaps at the top) the top in their disipline also. They have presteige and feelings to consider also. In this respect Junior is not such a common thing. > > >>The internet is not 100% reliable. If you don't have a plan for failures, >>you don't have a viable plan at all. Even long-distance telephones are not >>100%. Ask Monty Newborn/Ken Thompson/etc about the ACM computer chess events >>and the rules in place to handle potential phone outages (which do happen, >>sometimes for extended periods of time.) >> >> >> >>> Sorry, that's just not the way things are >>>done, even if it had been possible, which it wasn't. (Seirawan is leaving >>>Bermuda and their match arbiter leaves to another job even earlier.) >>> >>>I'm glad some people are actually reading my posts, I wish everyone were. IT WAS >>>A KNOCKOUT EVENT. Someone has to advance, the other games are the next day. >>>Unless you think we should have held the semi-final after the final, perhaps? No >>>further play dates were available to Adams because of the schedule of another >>>event in Bermuda. If it had happened to just about any other participant of >>>course we would have rescheduled, that was our first suggestion. We discussed a >>>dozen options. None were satisfactory. And the later it got, the less >>>satisfactory the options got. >>> >>>Saludos, Mig >>> >>>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.