Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:21:50 04/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 23:16:03, Chessfun wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 22:51:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 16, 2001 at 20:08:12, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2001 at 19:53:23, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2001 at 18:38:42, Mike S. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 15:52:33, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>(...) >>>>>>Firstly, any qualification tournament should be an author operated manual >>>>>>tournament on hardware selected and supplied by the author. Only this way can >>>>>>we be certain that each program will play at its best. >>>>> >>>>>Do you realise that this is a double-edged sword, at least for a top class >>>>>commercial product? The customers don't get author operation, or hardware >>>>>selection and supply by the author, when they buy a program. >>>>> >>>>>So if I am repeatadly told, this program is at its best operated by its author >>>>>etc., I'm going to think it will not be at it's best when I use it myself on my >>>>>two years old computer, compared to other programs that do not claim this. It's >>>>>pure anti-PR. >>>>> >>>>>Although I wonder if a program calculates faster, if the author clicks the >>>>>mouse. :o) >>>> >>>>Very funny :-) But really, I think your joke is misplaced. >>>> >>>>Its not that the programs can't play their best when the author is not present, >>>>the point is that if the author is present we can be SURE that the program is >>>>operating conditions which are optimal for it. >>>> >>>>If the program is operated by a 3rd party, then it is still possible that the >>>>program is operating under optimal conditions BUT we have a number of issues: >>>> >>>>1) The 3rd party is unlikely to be as careful as the author. The author has >>>>invested many years in his program, and therefore has much greater motivation >>>>for making sure that everything is set up 100% right. All those little things >>>>like selecting the right book, turning pondering on, configuring for the right >>>>number of CPUs, setting the right hash sizes, making sure that no other >>>>processes are stealing CPU, making sure tablebases are installed correctly etc >>>>etc. >>>> >>>>Of course a 3rd party will probably get these things right, but if you had to >>>>bet your life on it I think you'd rather have the program author doing it. >>>> >>>>2) The author will be much more capable of diagnosing any problems than a 3rd >>>>party. Problems? What problems you say. Well, lets think about hardware >>>>problems for a start. Memory can fail from time to time, and of course hard >>>>drives can fail too. And how about the CPU? Remember when Ed Shroeder managed >>>>to demonstrate that his Kryotech chip was faulty in one of the Rebel matches? >>>> >>>>These things are somewhat rare, although they are more common on the sort of >>>>state of art hardware that is likely to be in use. In any case, the author is >>>>likely to spot the problem (and recommend a course of action) before anyone >>>>else. >>>> >>>>3) Fairness: of course the 3rd party should be impartial, but how can we be sure >>>>of this? I don't personally know the people involved in the Kramnik >>>>qualification match, although I assume they are probably fair and unbiased. >>>>However I would have alot more faith in a competition being fair if the authors >>>>were present because I know they are going to make sure that they are getting a >>>>fair deal. >>>> >>>>Its like the old saying goes: 'Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to >>>>be done'. >>>> >>>>That about sums it up really. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Peter McKenzie >>> >>>HI PETER: APPARENTLY CHESSBASE IS MORE THAN HAPPY FOR ENRIQUE TO OPERATE BOTH >>>PROGRAMMES. IF SHREDDER AGREES TO ENTER THEN I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE A >>>REPRESENTATIVE FROM MILLENIUM TO OVERSEA ITS OPERATION (OR SO I GATHER) >>> >>>IT IS CHURLISH TO CLAIM THAT PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHO ENRIQUE IS. HE IS ONE OF THE >>>MOST IMPARTIAL, AS WELL AS RESPECTED FIGURES IN COMP CHESS BESIDES BEING AN >>>EXPERT IN THE FIELD. HE HAS BEEN OPERATING THE CADAQUES FOR SEVERAL YRS >>>INCLUDING SHREDDER AND REBEL (BOTH OF WHICH NORMALLY DONT ALLOW THEIR GAMES TO >>>BE PUBLISHED.) >>> >>>WHO BETTER CAN YOU THINK OF TO RUN SUCH A SELECTION? >>> >>>RAJEN >> >> >>I think Enrique would be a great choice to run such a tournament, assuming >>that the authors themselves can not attend. But in this case, no such >>tournament is needed. The opponent for Kramnik is intuitively obvious to >>the most casual of observers... >> >>PS _please_ fix your capslock key. Shouting (SHOUTING) is considered poor >>manners. > >Regardless of the opinion of Shredder being the obvious opponent, >what do you do when you casn't reach terms with Shredder?. >You get another candidate but naturally still ask shredder if >it wants to participate. Naturally the reply is negative. > >Then to play a match you try to determine what other candidates >are available and you seek help from the SSDF...all seems ok to me. > >Sarah. First, what do you _really_ know about the "failed negotiations?" I don't know a thing. Second, the SSDF is _not_ the place to go to get a challenger. This is _clearly_ the place for the ICCA to be involved, since the ICCA is affiliated with FIDE and sanctions the two recognized computer chess titles.
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.