Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:39:55 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 05:13:51, Rajen Gupta wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 05:02:25, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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 > >Hi ed: no method of testing is perfect but i dont see whats wrong with proposed >methd of selection.3 top of the range multi cpu progs(one a world champion, >another which has proved itself recently against a batch of A list grandmasters >and a third which has also proved itself repeatedly against top level humans and >heads the current SSDF list.)these will play a lrge series of matches gainst >each other to determine the challenger to kramnik. the people selected to do the >selection themselves are highly experienced as well as being known for their >personal integrity. i think we should encourage rather than try to ddestroy, >becuse as you rightly pointed out the sponsorrs might withdra any ttime! > >rajen "world champion vs world champion", it will have a big public support, don't you think? The planned "play-off" thing is just too debatable, CCC is entirely divided and for good reasons. My suggestions: 1) Invite more programs, invite 3-4 GM's, play x human-comp games. Afterall the Braingames event is a human-comp event and not a comp-comp one, no? Authors are fully responsible. 2) Invite more programs and play a manual comp-comp tournament, authors are fully responsible. I definitely prefer option 1 which IMO comes as closest to the truth playing Kramnik. I think both options will have a big public support. 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.