Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:00:30 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 22:37:24, Chessfun wrote: >I'm not sure either Amir or Franz would see it like that. >Shredder had a choice and it made it. Again you're relying on information you don't have available. Without knowing if the breaking point was money, conditions or something else, you can't know if they had a "choice". >After months of negotiation it went knowhere. You don't know if the negotiations have been taking months, the exact progress or the problems, if there were any. >Being done, who else is there. >As for the rest IMO. >Ferret...Not commercial (for me I'm therefore glad >Any other non commercial see above. >Patzer...Comeon. >Diep.....LOL >Crafty...IMO would do ok against the humans. Adding PConners (with a GM norm), Zugzwang and SOS (amateur WC) makes it even less ludicrous to talk about this kind of arrangement. And others who may have an interest in developing a SMP program before the event. Probably not many, but nonetheless. I might add that they invited Deep Blue, which is neither commercial or in one piece. But maybe Han Solo (or whatever his name is) is working all night in his lab to get ready. I kind of doubt that. Just a commecial ploy as this event. >So the choices were really rather slim. Noone claimed otherwise, which is another good reason for making the effort. Not a lot of engines equals more rounds and a reasonable justification of the winner. >Will be done with a number of matches not just a 10 round swiss. Again, you don't know how many matches will be played. I doubt they'll continue until there's statistical certainty, which makes "the strongest program" issue just as unclear. And who's talking about a swiss? >Again why you insist on all these other programs I find hard to understand. >I have seen you suggest Diep and Patzer? do you really honestly believe it >is worth the trouble or that those programs deserve to be considered.? I've explained in a previous post that there are two ways to do this fairly. One is selecting the champion and the other is to open the event completely, that means challenge by right (champion) or qualification (all eligible). An invitational infers limitation by choice (discrimination if you wish), which contradicts fairness in this circumstance. Either it's a champion vs. champion match or a man vs. strongest comp match. Neither option is solved by invitations. This proposed match is pure exhibition, ie. Kramnik vs. ChessBase, despite the forseeable headlines. Nothing else at all. And this is backed up by the conditions relayed here by the organizers. Apparently, ChessBase agreed to just about anything presented before them to exploit the (maybe) troublesome negotiations between Millennium and BGN. Arranging an invitational with conditions that they knew would scare Millennium off (otherwise there would have been no negotiation problems) is a blatant scam, giving the current "surprising" result. A pure attempt at making the challenger event legitimate. There's no need to infer secret money transactions as TC does, it stinks enough already. >It is, the original tournament you mention may be of what 10 games, very easy >for the best program not to make the playoff where it would win. The format is easily adjustable given the number of engines. A pool division with seedning according to tournament results in ICCA approved tournaments with many engines. Give it a week and you'll reach a reasonable amount of games in each pool with autoplay. With author participation, fewer matches but smaller margin for random error. The playoff could be twenty matches. With very few engines then a knockout format with seedning. Still not a real problem. Another thing worthy of consideration is the current arrangement. How many days do you really think they will go on with supervision, accomodations and media interest (and Bertil's vacation)? I doubt they'll go beyond a week, probably less. How many games will they play in that time? Maybe four or five a day, which results in approx. twenty to thirty games. Not enough to demonstrate strongest. And since it's autoplayeer games, they should be checked for errors as well. The timeframe would actually be quite similar for both types of arrangement and the number of games for the eventual winner wouldn't differ much either. Not to mention a more trustworthy winner given different opponent types. >Yes I have seen the names and I'm still smiling LOL. Well, I'm just sad that you've eaten the scam with hook, line and sinker. >I have an equal idea at least to yours....no? Apparently not. If you did, then you would be knowledgable about previous official tournaments where they participated and that they're no pushovers judging by performance. >That being the case I am entitled to give my opinion, if yours >is to include Diep and Patzer so be it. Certainly, but that isn't the case. >I agree. Actually my opinion is on equal hardware Tiger 14 is stronger than Deep >Fritz. However to say that it's impossible to determine the strongest >programs is IMO a fantasy. It seems to me very similar to seeding the favorites >something done everyday. The favs in this case determined by two notable >computer experts. No, it's comparing the possible number of games with statistics. Nothing else, whic eliminates the "strongest" claim. As for the experts. Well, I don't think most people here are very impressed. Enrique manages to taint his reputation by arranging a invitational with a given result, while also being a beta tester for that company. And Bertil offers the SSDF stamp of approval to this arrangement knowingly or not. All in all, not something that gives bragging rights. >No, because the terms of the actual match with Kramnik also have to be taken >into account prior to any qualifying tournament. Again it would IMO takes >months. The BGN acts on behalf of Kramnik, which is displayed by the conditions made behind the invitational, so that wouldn't be a real problem. The terms of the match are not different than they are know. The identity of the challenger doesn't matter as long as there's a three month notice, which there would be. Regards, Mogens
This page took 0.01 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.