Author: blass uri
Date: 07:00:23 03/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2000 at 19:50:34, Amir Ban wrote: > >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. I agree that demanding to play at unequal time control is not fair but I think she could demand to get more money and to play the game in another date if the sponsor want her to play the game The reason is that playing at fast time control is unfair for her and playing at tournament time control after being tired from waiting is also unfair for her. It is also unfair to ask her to play at another date without suggesting money for the time she wasted. Uri
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.