Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:27:22 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 05:39:55, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. This would be a reasonable idea. However, I would suspect that putting it together would cost a fortune. ICCA events are not cheap and now you factor in paying 4 GM players as well. This probably won't happen as Kramnik is going to want a big prize fund himself. > >2) Invite more programs and play a manual comp-comp tournament, authors are >fully responsible. Hmmm... This has been done three times in the last 2 years. Shredder won _all three_. The two WMCCC events and the WCCC event. Again, this is going to cost money. Why do that when we _already_ have the results from the previous three such events? > >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. Option 2 certainly has support. Since it has already happened. :) > >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.