Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:02:25 04/17/01
On April 16, 2001 at 19:53:23, Peter McKenzie wrote: >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 All good points Peter and of course a lot of people will agree with you. There is something else I would like to mention, an aspect that has not been discussed yet. There is an important chess event planned, very good. If the Braingames company would have said, "world champion vs world champion" than everything is okay with me, it is their show and their money. But the Braingame company said: no, we want the best program to play Kramnik and furthermore we hire a few experts to make that decision (Enrique/Bertil). So far so good. Then the 2 experts pick 4 programs based on THEIR OPINION. Right or wrong? Well, CCC is full of it. Lots of divided opinions. There are a few bad side effects I would like mention concerning this giant discussion: 1) Whatever program in the end is chosen, it will not have a full public support. 2) There is a small risk that the big division in opinions may lead that Braingames may decide to cancel the whole event as positive attention is certainly one of the financial aspects of Braingames to have this event and they certainly can not have bad publicity. This is in NOBODY's interest as I am pretty sure EVERYBODY here in CCC and elsewhere wants to have this match whatever candidate in the end is chosen. Therefore it would be wise this whole play-off thing should be reconsidered in such a way it has full public support, or at least a significant majority. Ed
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.