Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 17:36:39 04/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2001 at 19:53:31, Peter Berger wrote: >On April 15, 2001 at 18:44:06, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >> >>Here is some news about the upcoming event: >> >> >>- We invited 4 programs: DB and the Deeps of Fritz, Shredder and Junior. >>"We" is BGN and Enrique Irazoqui, with Bertil Eklund as consultant. >> >>- DB is obvious. Fritz has been leading everything in computer chess, short >>of a Swiss open of 7 rounds that receives the name "world championship". >>Shredder is strong and got the 2 last titles, whatever they mean, although >>it never topped the SSDF list, never won long tournaments. Junior is also >>strong, was first in the SSDF list about a year ago, won some long >>tournaments, achieved a PR of 2702 last year in Dortmund. The rest is either >>not strong enough or not SMP ready, which means they don't have a chance and >>their inclusion would only increase randomness. >> >>- Which program is stronger against humans? Who knows and who says they do >>differently in comp-comp as opposed to human-comp. Besides, a "candidates" >>with 20 programs and 20 first rate GMs that consists of enough games takes >>ages and a huge amount of money nobody mentioned. >> >>- The "Qualifiers" will be played in a public place (by the way, beautiful, >>with a great view over the bay :) ) >> >>- Programmers will send their latest babies and books, and all settings will >>follow their instructions. >> >>- An international arbiter will be present for the event in case DS >>participates. Otherwise the other two programmers don't seem to require an >>arbiter. >> >>- But just in case, Bertil Eklund has been invited for the event. >> >>- The Cadaqués event is not to be hold in "closed session". In fact, >>journalists, arbiter and other visitors will be present. Press and Internet >>coverage will be substantial. >> >>- Programmers are free to develop their engines until October 1st, provided >>that they will send regular updates to Kramnik. The idea is to avoid the >>DB-Kasparov scenario, in which Kasparov had no idea of the opponent. >> >>- The entry fee will be returned to the programmers that won't win the >>Qualifiers. >> >>- If a programmer feels entitled to play a given human player, he is more >>than welcome to organize the match and find the funds. >> >>Bertil > > > >This is simply _very_ incorrect and doesn't follow most common understanding of >rules and justice !! > >My objection is mainly to Bertil Eklund and Enrique Irazoquoi who really >_should_ know better . > >In fact all this hatred about Shredder showing in your message is quite telling >, Bertil . > >OK . My take : > >An event World Master - World Master aka Shredder - Kramnik wouldn't need >additional explanation . > >An event Kramnik - Deep Blue wouldn't either for obvious reasons . > >So now we talk about a qualifying event instead . > >The purpose ( as told ) is to find the most worthy opponent for Kramnik . > >I won't object to the choice of Fritz , Shredder , Junior and Deep Blue here >although the modus to let them play against each other to find out about the >best by judgement of Mr Irazoquoi and Mr Eklund is obviously bogus . > >But let me add a few others who have just the same right to enter such an event >and the injustice is so obvious that it is simply unbelievable . > >a.) Tiger > >If 8 processors of one of the chosen contenders are better than 1 processor of >Tiger is completely unknown . On a single computer it is most obvious that Tiger >is the strongest today and if more processors even make a difference against a >human master is unknown . > >b.) Rebel Century > >This is the only one that tried similar events on a regular basis before and >performed well in those events . > >c.) Crafty > >Crafty _can_ run under the monster hardware required and actually _is_ optimized >for exactly the kind of match to take place as told by its author . > >And there are also _good_ reasons to include Chessmaster or Ferret or PConners , >too btw . > >Or some others . > >No qualifying event is understandable ; a reasonable one is understandable , too >. This kind of random event by courtesy of Mr Irazoquoi and Mr Eklund is kind of >disgusting . > >pete What's so disgusting about their idea? At least they seem to try to find an answer to the question if a commercial chess program which is available, and which it won't be disassembled at the end of the event, is capable of holding against a World Champion. You probably did not read the last statement: "If a programmer feels entitled to play a given human player, he is more than welcome to organize the match and find the funds." If you think it's so unfair, you are welcome to organize the event, and provide the funds. I personally would like to see any commercial chess engine which is available to the consumer to play against Krammik, at least this will provide a yardstick for future measurement. This is probably the intention behind of organizing such a event. When DB played Kasparov, DB did not had to prove itself nor play any qualifying tournament, IBM provided the funds. Will you provide the funds then if you think that your favorite chess engine should be the one? My 2 cents worth. Regards, Laurence
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.