Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: About Xie Jun's open letter

Author: Amir Ban

Date: 16:50:34 03/23/00



Hi,

I didn't comment on this match so far, and didn't think there was anything to
comment on really. This match was a failure and of no real computer chess
interest both because of the internet connection problems, and even more, in my
mind, because of gross errors in operating Deep Junior.

I was not directly involved in this match. I was tied up with other commitments.
The main burden fell on Shay, who is a KC officer, and he, assisted by some KC
staff, handled the operation of Deep Junior while also having to handle the
technical communication aspect of the affair, plus doing most of the dialogue
with Shanghai during the match. I was not on site, and while I got some
information from Shay on the phone, most of what I know is from the KC web
account which I read like the rest of you, against which Ms. Xie's letter is
directed.

I need to make clear that I'm NOT connected to KasparovChess in any official or
unofficial way. I don't know if they intend to respond to Ms. Xie letter, but
since much of what she says is directed at the "Deep Junior Team", I would like
to make some comments.

Ms. Xie account basically says that she was insulted and lied to, and her
account is directed at that conclusion. She accuses both KC and the DJ team. On
behalf of the DJ team, I can say that we certainly did not insult her, as we
never made any public comment about her. We did not lie to her or break any
agreement we had with her as we had none. Her contract was with KC, not with DJ,
who was her opponent.

If her accusations are directed only at KC, I could easily say that this is not
my concern, but as an observer, I still would like to disagree with her.
KasparovChess are no doubt to blame for mismanaging this match. Enough justified
criticism was said about this, and I don't need to add to it. Nevertheless, to
their credit I notice that both in the Adams incident and this one KC as an
organization have freely taken on themselves the blame, and in no way were
engaged in blame throwing. I also note that they have been eager rather than
reluctant to accommodate the opponent and to offer compensation for the mishaps.

So I am quite surprised to read that she found their account so offensive. The
KC account is still posted on their site for anyone to see, and I honestly can't
find the "many ugly words" that so deeply insulted her. I thought the account
was rather delicate, and did not make any value judgement on her behavior. I do
not see in that account anything that hints that connection problems in Shanghai
were her fault. She was not accused of unsportsmanship (though we did indeed
consider one of her demands to be poor sportsmanship). She was certainly not
accused of dishonesty, and it's a mystery why she says protests honesty.

Many of those who read the KC report concluded that the match ran into problems,
which were not her fault, and that she was in a position to help, but didn't. As
a result, some posted here that she has part of the blame for the failure of the
match. This is public opinion, which we all have to deal with, but this was
certainly not said by KC, and it was never implied that she was under any
obligation to do anything, like playing through the telephone when internet
lines were down. On the other hand, to say that playing through the telephone
was a violation of the terms of the match is in my opinion nonsense which was
said by her as an afterthought. Both sides are of course free to agree on
anything with the consent of the arbiter, and if she were concerned about the
letter of the agreement, I'm sure KC would have sent her an immediate fax
exempting her of all fault for breaking it.

I don't think it was possible for KC to tell a shorter story than they did
without keeping the public in the dark about what happened and why.

I'm even more surprised because I think that those who read her account
carefully will come to the conclusion that, first, it does not contradict the KC
account in any important detail, and second, that her own account reflects on
her worse than anything KC said. In my opinion, KC showed proper discretion by
keeping silent on some facts which, while true, if published would paint her in
a less favorable light, and apparently KC had no such intention.

I thought "money transfer disagreements" was a properly bland term to describe
something that was best not described in detail. Ms. Xie on the other hand does
not mince words and calls this a lie, and then proceeds to describe those "money
transfer disagreements". Reading her account of this, I think that signing a
contract and adding an additional condition at the same time can easily lead to
innocent misunderstanding. I read that she received signed assurances signed by
the KC CEO (of course legally binding), and she dismisses it as a worthless
piece of paper, which can certainly cause some offense to Mr. Eyal Gutman.

Her account strongly implies that in the end she sat down to play without
getting any money, out of consideration for the fans, though she does say she
got more assurances, without specifying what they were. This is in contradiction
to what I've been told, that in the end Ms. Xie agreed to play only when, at her
insistence, all sums promised to her in this match, including a large bonus for
winning the match, were transferred to her, all in advance.

Ms. Xie tells a detail that KC completely omitted in their account: That from
the start of the match she refused to talk directly to any KC staff or to the DJ
operator, and all the rather lengthy discussions that took place over the four
games were exclusively through Mr. Leong. The people on the KC end interpreted
this behavior as a declaration of contempt for them, and her account more or
less confirms this impression.

Her account of times and delays in each of the games are probably accurate. They
have been described by the KC account in the necessary detail. All connection
problems this time originated in Shanghai. This was in no way her fault, but I
think it should be noted that she is discussing the same events, in case anyone
is led to believe she describes problems and delays not reported by KC. The KC
staff was of course aware that this was causing problems on her side, and in all
games she received time adjustment and shortening of time controls as she
demanded, except on one occasion: This was on the third game (won by DJ) when
after a long delay in starting the game Ms. Xie demanded that all the time
passed should be deducted from her opponent's clock. The KC account merely says
that this was refused. In fact, Shay, who was scandalized by this demand, told
Ms. Xie through Mr. Leong that the DJ team withdraws from the match, and agreed
to continue only after a more reasonable agreement was reached on shortening
time controls. Ms. Xie says that her demand is what everyone would do, but I
don't agree with that.

As to the move Kd8, in normal circumstances I'm sure the operator would pick up
the phone, apologize and ask for a takeback. It's good to hear that this would
have been accepted by Ms. Xie, but, under the cirucumstances of this match the
operator thought that there was no point in asking and decided to bite the
bullet. The king walk was certainly not meant to embarrass her in front of the
audience. From the point of view of the game it was to her advantage, as was the
book error in the second game.

There is no disagreement about the circumstances in which the match was called
off. Ms. Xie was disconnected, and was asked by the KC staff to reconnect. Since
she saw at her end DJ on the move and its clock ticking, she refused and
challenged DJ to make a move on her screen or lose on time. By her account, she
brought well-known people to vouch for what she saw on the screen, but could not
convince the KC staff. The KC staff of course did not need this testimony as it
was irrelevant, and they tried to explain to her that she is seeing a local view
shown by her local disconnected viewer. Giving up on that, they cancelled the
rest of the match, and told it to her of course through Mr. Leong. This was not
done by consensus, but I think it is obvious that in the complete breakdown of
trust and communication and with no idea how to continue this was the only sane
course of action. I think quite apart from the fact that Ms. Xie thought she was
being lied to about this, it's hard to understand how anyone would agree to play
a match through the internet without being prepared to believe the organizers
about how their connection software works.

Amir




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.