Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:40:22 04/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 20:16:08, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>On April 16, 2001 at 19:44:36, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 16, 2001 at 09:18:58, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>>
>>>Hi there,
>>>
>>>I think we lose now important computer chess tourneys.
>>>Why we need a computer chess world champion?
>>>
>>>When here other programs cann`t beat Shredder we must search ways to create
>>>other events or is the reason ...
>>>
>>>Money, Money, Money
>>>
>>>And ...
>>>I believe chess programmers are bad loser, sorry!
>>>
>>>Shredder won all important tourneys and must play against Kramnik!
>>
>>
>>
>>Bullshit. Please look for Shredder's ranking in this tournament result. And
>>please look for the ranking of the SMP version of this program.
>
>The first:
>Sorry Christophe, the name Bullshit is not a name in my vocabulary !
Learn this word as quickly as possible, it is useful here. :)
>The ranking from Aufsess is for me not interesting. Here are not the programmers
>with here new versions available. This is not a officical tourney.
>
>I believe that you have not very big interest to go to the big tourneys.
>Examples: French-ch, Spain-ch, Dutch-ch, only the WM 99 !
Of course I would like to go in these tournaments myself. But do you know where
I live?
I just CANNOT come. It's too expensive.
>So I think that is for you not important to play in different tourneys. For
>other programmers is this important.
That's what we call bullshit. I guess the meaning of the word should be more
obvious now? :)
>>==================================================
>>Tournament : Aufseß 2001
>>Date : 13/03 to 17/03
>>Type : 9 rounds Swiss
>>Time control : 3h/all
>>
>> 1. Chess-Tiger 13.0 Athlon 1,3 GHz 6.5 46.5 31.75
>> 2. Hiarcs 7.32 Athlon 800 6.5 46.0 32.75
>> 3. CM 6555 Athlon 1,2 GHz 6.0 45.5 29.00
>> 4. SOS 11/2000 Athlon 800 5.5 44.5 26.25
>> 5. Deep Fritz 2x P3 1 GHz 5.5 43.5 26.00
>> 6. Gandalf 4.32h Athlon 1,2 GHz 5.5 36.5 20.25
>> 7. Hiarcs 7.01 Athlon 1,0 5.0 45.0 24.00
>> 8. Gambit-Tiger 1.0 P3-840 5.0 44.0 22.25
>> 9. Shredder5 Erbsenzähler P3-1000 5.0 41.5 20.25
>>10. Deep Shredder 2x P3-935 5.0 41.0 20.25
>>11. Deep Junior 2x Athlon 1Ghz 5.0 40.5 18.50
>>12. Century 3.0 P3-866 4.5 45.5 21.25
>>13. Junior 6 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.5 38.5 16.75
>>14. Triple-Brain 2 x Celeron 500 4.0 36.5 13.25
>>15. Shredder 5 Athlon 1,2 GHz 4.0 36.0 13.00
>>16. Fritz 6 P2-400 3.5 44.5 16.00
>>17. The King 2.54 P4-1300 3.5 38.0 14.25
>>18. Genius 6,5 P3-800 3.5 36.5 12.00
>>19. Nimzo 8 Athlon 1 GHz 3.0 36.0 10.75
>>20. Goliath Light Exp. Athlon 1,2 3.0 35.0 10.25
>>21. M- Chess 7.1 P3-500 2.5 35.0 8.25
>>22. CM 8000 Athlon 1,2 GHz 2.5 35.0 8.00
>>====================================
>>
>>The URL: www.rebel.nl/r11-resu.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>So either you trust the result of such tournaments, and in this case how can you
>>still advocate for Shredder, or you admit that these tournaments have some
>>randomness and that the results have to be taken with a grain of salt, and in
>>this case Shredder winning last year's WMCCC is no proof of superiority.
>
>Only the WM is a tourney where is important. Also the Dutch-ch, France-ch,
>Spain-ch, Australian-ch, IPCCC !
>Not private tourneys:
>Enrique tourneys, my CCC tourney, Aufsess ... other tourneys.
>
>>I can already hear Weiner and you saying that "Stefan was not here". And so
>>what? I wasn't here either, and my program won. My program also won the very
>>strong Dutch Open Championship and guess what, I wasn't there. Actually my
>>program has never won a tournament when I was here, but has won many when I
>>wasn't here.
>
>Yes, Tiger won the Dutch-ch and won the Dutch-ch with an famos result.
>Furthermore, Tiger won the Spain-ch, France-ch, Massy !
>
>4 important tourneys.
>
>The best results have:
>
>01. Shredder
>02. Tiger
>
>So I can understand your points but World Champion is not Tiger, World Champion
>1996, 1999, 2000 and IPCCC winner 2000, 2001 is Shredder !
>
>>And I would not even dare to pretend my program is superior because it won these
>>tournaments (and many others, do you remember).
>
>>>The right way is to say:
>>>Shredder is world champion and must play.
>>>
>>>WE ALL SAY KRAMNIK MUST PLAY :-))
>>>WHY WE ALL SAY KRAMNIK MUST PLAY ??
>>>WHY KRAMNIK IS WORLD CHAMPION :-))
>>>
>>>AND NOW WE ALL SAY WE NEED A QUALIFICATION :-)))
>>>
>>>All other comments are not 100% correct!
>>>
>>>If we play a qualification we have a chance to say yes but this qualification is
>>>the next world championchip 2001. So we lose not our face in this case (for
>>>money?).
>
>>OK, I agree. But in this case the exact same version and hardware that will win
>>the 2001 W(M)CCC must play against Kramnik. Not an unknown version on a totally
>>different hardware.
>
>Yes, this is right !
>
>We have not an other chance to say program x can play vs. Kramnik.
>The right way is to play a new WM 2001, if Tiger can win the tourney (I think
>Tiger have a good chance) so Tiger can play against Kramnik.
>
>This is in my opinion not the best way because we have at the moment the
>discussion and at the moment is Shredder world champion but this is only a way
>to say that an other program as Shredder can play.
Shredder has won the WMCCC 2000 and is now hiding. The SSDF is not allowed to
test it. If it is superior, it has nothing to lose, isn't it? But it is hiding
instead.
Mr Weiner's reasonning is so obvious: if Shredder is tested by the SSDF then it
will not get the first place.
So let's keep our WMCCC title and prevent people from knowing more about the
real strength of the program.
And you know what? This disinformation campaign actually WORKS.
Even people like you, who are supposed to really want to know the truth about
strength of chess programs, support the disinformation campaign.
Of course, if Shredder's rating was published by the SSDF, we would ALL know
that there are programs that are superior (and maybe by far, who knows). Then we
would all think that the idea of letting Shredder play against Kramnik is
biased.
But because of this disinformation, some people actually think that not letting
Shredder play is biased. isn't it funny?
Notice that Weiner also decided to retire when he learned that Shredder would
have to demonstrate its superiority against Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. I think
that it is saying A LOT about your friend and his trust in Shredder!!!
>>>But not with only SMP versions, all which have interest can play the next WM
>>>2001.
>>>
>>>We are in the position to say all computer programs can play the WM 2001 (better
>>>name as Qualification).
>>>
>>>I believe the organizers forget important things and give her good name for
>>>money.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, a bad day for computer chess. A bad day for comptuer chess world
>>>master 1996, 1999, 2000, IPCCC Champion 2000, 2001, CCT Champion Stefan Meyer
>>>Kahlen. The Champion of all this tourneys must play a qualification :-))
>
>>Do you need the list of tournaments won by Fritz, Tiger, Junior, Rebel and
>>others???
>
>Yes, please download my tourney database with all important tourneys since 1990.
>Only this tourneys are important. Yes, Fritz won the WM 95 and Dutch-ch 1999.
>
>>Your comment is highly biased in the sense that you give an artificially high
>>weight in the tournaments named "World Championship". You ignore the very
>>important permanent tournament named "SSDF rating list" for example, the always
>>very high level Dutch Championship and all the other events in which all the top
>>programs participated, and where Shredder simply did not win.
>
>The SSDF is not interesting. Not all programs on current hardware are playing
>here. Not enough programs playing here.
>
>Example:
>Fritz won the tourney from Enrique !
>
>Do you mean that Fritz can win the tourney from Enrique if LGoliath and Gromit
>play in this tourney. Fritz dislike this programs. For a good rating list you
>must play against a lot of different programs, not only 4-5 programs in
>different versions.
>
>This is my opinion Christophe.
It is even worse in the WM tournaments. For example Tiger did not meet Shredder
in the WCCC 1999.
Very often top program do not met each other. When they meet each other, it's
(of course) only for one game. If you know your job as tester, then you know
that it has almost no meaning.
>And yes, the WM is important, I will not see next year 2 computer chess world
>champions and I have interest not to lose the next event (like Aegon).
>
>Please visit the interview with Mathias Feist on my webpage.
>Translate the interview about the Young Talents CD. Mathias wrote a little bit
>about the WM. Please look what Robert Hyatt wrote, Peter McKenzie, James
>Robertson.
>
>The only right words are:
>Deep Shredder ist World Champion and must play against Kramnik !
First, "Deep Shredder" is not World champion. As far as I know the name of the
World champion is "Shredder". Or am I mistaken?
Second, the World champion is hiding and does not want the SSDF to publish its
true rating. That stinks.
Third, when the program in question learns it will have to qualify against 2
other top programs, it simply retires.
>>>I will not say Shredder is the best chess program but I will say that other
>>>programs play not better. 4-5 programs or a little bit more playing with a very
>>>high level, but Stefan have all titels. For me it is clear ... only Stefan can
>>>play vs. Kramnik or we play a new WM.
>
>>If the 2000 WMCCC was really the qualifying event for the match against Kramnik,
>>then in this case the version of Shredder that played last year must play
>>against Kramnik, on the same hardware.
>
>Hm, must thinking about this, good point !
>Yes a good point, you have right !
>
>>If you want to enter a newer version on a different kind of computer, i.e. an
>>UNKNOWN ENTITY, then all other unknown entities have the same right to fight for
>>the right to play against Kramnik.
>
>Hm, also interesting !
>You can wrote 50 of this interesting points ... yes ... but Christophe ...
>
>Shredder is World Champion !
>Sorry Christophe, this title is important for all sportsman.
Do you think the organizers of the event want to face the disappointement when
the general audience will learn that the program which played was NOT the
strongest available?
That is a serious problem for the credibility of the event. World champion or
not, if it is known that it was not the strongest the credibility of the event
will suffer.
Can the organizers afford to spend big money on such a dubious thing?
Christophe
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.