Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:54:11 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 00:41:50, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 22:29:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 16, 2001 at 20:14:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2001 at 19:06:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2001 at 19:01:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 14:14:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 13:21:21, Chris Taylor wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Let the single chip programs play. If confidence is so high that they are not >>>>>>>good enough, then fine. They are swept aside! But at least they have had their >>>>>>>chance! Ed has got a good program, so Does Christophe. Not to mention a score >>>>>>>of other programs, that given the chance to play, will at least be there! To >>>>>>>exclude them from the start of the race, is strange. Unless of course it has >>>>>>>all been decided. Hows' that for a selective search? >>>>>>>If the likes of Rebel Century or The Tigers, fail to qualify, at least you will >>>>>>>have the "Strongest" to go on and play Kramnik. And the people who say they were >>>>>>>not strong enough, will be able to say "Told you so" If one of the single chip >>>>>>>programs does win through, it will be because they had the opportunity >>>>>>>to take part. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Chris Taylor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I totally disagree. There is exactly _one_ program that should be playing >>>>>>Kramnik. Shredder. Shredder has won all of the recent computer chess >>>>>>tournaments. It is the current world champion. There is _absolutely_ no >>>>>>reason to suggest that a playoff for the right to play Kramnik is needed. In >>>>>>fact, the suggestion is really insulting to SMK and Shredder. If a program >>>>>>didn't participate in the last WMCCC event, then I conclude that Shredder is >>>>>>better and the author was afraid to participate and lose. And by doing that, >>>>>>he gave up the opportunity to take part in this match. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't understand why there is _any_ sort of playoff under discussion, other >>>>>>than it is politically/marketing related. yes a newer program might be a bit >>>>>>better than the older Shredder that won the last WMCCC. But the new Shredder >>>>>>could well be better than that. closed-door back room tournaments are _not_ >>>>>>the way to handle this. >>>>>> >>>>>>The idea is embarassing, to say the least. When we won the 1983 WCCC event, >>>>>>nobody questioned who should play David Levy that year. The same logic should >>>>>>apply now, and SMK/Shredder should play, whether he uses a 486/33 or an 8-way >>>>>>xeon/900. >>>>>> >>>>>>Seems that commercial computer chess companies are just as bloodthirsty now as >>>>>>they were 20 years ago. And have just as few principles now as then. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>By this reasonning, the program that must play against Kramnik is the WMCCC 2000 >>>>>SHREDDER ON A SINGLE CPU. Because this is the program which won the 2000 WMCCC. >>>>> >>>>>Allowing another version of the program or the hardware (in particular in the >>>>>number of processors) is allowing an unknown entity to take part to the match. >>>>>In this case, I do not see why other unknown entities would not be allowed to >>>>>take part as well. >>>> >>>>Obviously a program is no longer an unknown entity as soon as >>>>Kramnik gets a copy of the program which plays. >>>> >>>>It is very hard to make hard that deep shredder is an unknown entity. >>> >>> >>> >>>It's just a matter of consistency. >>> >>>It has been said that Shredder is the only program that has the right to fight >>>Kramnik because Shredder is the reigning World Champion. >>> >>>Which version of Shredder has won this title? The version which played in August >>>2000 in London during the 2000 WMCCC, on the hardware that has been used at that >>>time. >> >> >>That is about the most twisted and silly logic I have ever seen. > > >Thanks. > > > >> Can you >>get the "2000 WCC Kramnik" to play also? Is it _possible_ that he might be >>a bit worse this year than last year, due to practice? Maybe a few of his >>book lines have been busted? >> >>The argument simply won't hold water in any logical discussion. Shredder >>is the current WCCC. > > > >What is twisted is the logic "World Champion in August 2000 = strongest program >and best possible opponent for Kramnik in October 2001". > No it isn't. Shredder won the last WMCCC event. It won the last WCCC event. It won the previous WMCCC event. It _does_ have a track record. I don't think luck is enough to get you to #1 in three consecutive tournaments. It takes _more_. > > > >> Running a newer version on faster hardware would hardly >>be considered "weaker" by anybody with an ounce of logic... > > > >My point is that the title belongs to the August 2000 version of Shredder. > >The newer versions do not own any World title at all. > >On the other hand, there have been several major releases of several other major >chess programs. It is highly probable that some of them is better than Shredder. > >But remember that the company which sells Shredder has forbidden the SSDF to >publish any result of this program. > >This is where the twist is. If Shredder had been tested, most probably he would >not top the list. And today the idea that Shredder should play Kramnik would >seem highly biased. > I don't think the SSDF list has a thing to do with this proposed match. The ICCA events are more controlled, and don't depend on long series of games vs the same opponent, to test more of which program has the best book learning vs which program has the most skill. SSDF testing is certainly well-done, but it tests something _different_ than the ICCA (or any) tournament does. >But thanks to Mr Weiner and his disinformation skills, we know close to nothing >about the real strength of this program. > >Promoting Shredder as the only logical opponent, which it is of course not, is >just like endorsing this disinformation campaign. I don't like what _any_ of the commercial entities do. You can only believe half of what they publish. And you have to take that with a grain of salt, since it is all about marketing and not about truth. But that aside, SMK is the author, not Weiner and associates. And _he_ has certainly proven that over the past 2-3 years he owns the best program... And holding the ICCA title should certainly mean _something_ here... > > > > 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.