Author: Dan Homan
Date: 10:04:07 04/17/01
I haven't been reading CCC much over the last few months, but I have been interested in this World Human Champ vs. World Computer Champ match that is being organized. The fact that a "procedure" is being proposed to find a new World Computer Champ is astonishing to me (as it is to many others, it seems). We have a world computer chess champ. In fact, we have a unified WCCC and WMCCC title holder who has dominated the major international tournaments for years. Why is there any doubt that Shredder is obvious choice for this match? Because people prefer their own home-grown definition of "best".... Assuming that everyone involved honestly wants the best computer opponent for Kramnik, who should play depends on how you define "best computer opponent". As Bruce pointed out, anyone with a basement, 2 computers, and a null modem cable can define a 'world champ'. When the definition of 'world's best' can be made this easily, anyone can honestly present evidence to support any program they want, and the original honest desire to see the best computer opponent gets perverted into everyone backing the program they like best. It becomes a popularity contest that those who have the ear of the match organizer will ultimately win. Unfortunately what they lose in the process is legitimacy. What could have been a very exciting match, hyped in the press as "world human champ meets world computer champ" becomes "deep fritz/junior vs Kramnik" -- how boring! Frankly, I don't give a fig who the "best computer opponent" for Kramnik is. Who is the best will depend on who's basement your playing in and who sent in the most recent opening book updates. A few tweaks of code tomorrow, and my own home-grown program might be the best to face Kramnik (hey, you never know.... ). I think the most important thing is to have the most legitimate opponent, one that clearly has an un-impeachable right to play as the "world's best computer program". There is an international body that has been sanctioning chess matches and tournaments for decades. They have organized an open tournament to decide the world computer and world micro computer chess champion. The winner of these tournaments (Shredder) has legitimacy as the 'world's best'. The only other machine with similar legitimacy is Deep Blue due to its highly public win over Kasparov. Of course, Deep Blue, is a non-factor as they will never play again. I would strongly suggest that the organizers pay careful attention to legitimacy when deciding who to invite to play Kramnik. They should remember that anyone can twist definitions and introduce home-brew matches and tournaments to obfuscate the issue of 'who is the best', but ultimately you cannot ignore multiple world titles granted by an international non-profit organization which has been the sole organization granting these titles for decades. - Dan P.S. I don't think a small 'qualifing tournament' will enhance legitimacy. Unless the tournament is conducted by the ICCA, any result from such a tourney will be (rightly) viewed with skepticism...
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.