Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:37:23 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 00:38:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 22:39:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 16, 2001 at 17:32:13, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2001 at 16:24:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2001 at 14:58:08, Chris Taylor 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. >>>>> >>>>>My only concern was the exclusion of certain programs, simply because they limp >>>>>on one leg? >>>>> >>>>>I agree with you, that Shredder is World Champ, and should shoot for Kramnik! >>>>>Since it appears that this will not happen? Sadly, a tounament will be played, >>>>>the deed is done. But only for the exclusive few? To all the rest, not even a >>>>>look in. Strange how Shredder can be let down, as well? >>>>> >>>>>Just me 10 penneth >>>>> >>>>>Chris Taylor >>>> >>>> >>>>Just goes to show that the world isn't always fair. :( I generally try >>>>to remember such things, and at some point, the "other side" will need some >>>>help. But not from me. I can't believe any of this mess is happening. I >>>>would hope the _authors_ of the programs would do the right thing themselves >>>>and simply say "my program won't participate, this is a right earned by >>>>Shredder and it is Shredder or nothing..." >>> >>>I think that it should be agreed before the event and not after the event. >>>I see no reason to assume that winning WCCC or WMCCC give a program a right for >>>something that was not agreed before the event. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>If you bill the match as "world human champion" vs "world computer champion" >>then there is little choice. Shredder _does_ hold the latter title. > > >1)Kramnik does not hold the second title. >Anand has the second title. >Kramnik has another title that is considered to be more than being a world >champion. > >2)By the same logic kasparov could play against Fritz3 and not against Deeper >blue because the fact that Fritz3 was the world champion gave a little choice to >choose the opponent against kasparov > >Uri You totally miss the point. The Kasparov vs Deep Blue was not a world- supported event. IBM walked up to Kasparov and said "wanna play? If you do, we will put up a prize fund of $1,000,000.00 for the match." That match had _nothing_ to do with "best computer vs best human". It was "IBM vs Garry Kasparov (who just happened to be the best human)". I think it was SMK that first proposed the Kramnik match. Then it got side-tracked into the current debacle. But the current discussion has nothing to do with the DB match whatsoever. That was a "private deal" that was seen in the public setting. IE I would see _nothing_ wrong with my challenging Kramnik if I could pay him enough to do it, or if I could find a sponsor willing to pay him enough to do it. I would not bill it as "the best chess computer vs the best human" however. I will bill it as "Crafty on a monster machine vs the best human."
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.