Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:33:59 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 14:02:24, guy haworth wrote: > >Today, in the London Times, Raymond Keene referred to a computer-tournament at >Cadaques (?) being imminent to decide the challenger for a Kramnik-Computer >match. > >I presume we are referring to the same event - but is RK's report correct or >just attempted wish-fulfillment? > > >RK is associated with the so called 'BrainGames Network', BGN, which presumably >relies on creating events to generate revenue. Boxing went the same way. > >BGN did not hesitate to call the Kasparov-Kramnik Match in London a "World >Championship", despite the fact that there were no inclusive qualifying rounds >of any description. They were presumably competing for the >Kasparov-Kramnik-World-Title or the BGN-World-Title. > >While the ICCA has been the sole organiser of World Computer Chess >Championships, there is nothing to stop anyone creating 'World Titles' if they >want to. A pity that the currency can be devalued as easily as this. > >However organised by whoever, it would be good if human-computer events were >more frequent and also had greater significance and validity. Sort of like Boxing, where you have many, many world champions in every weight division. In that light, let's not forget "The World Champion of Dann Corbit's Basement" -- Little Goliath, and the runner up "Crafty" ;-) Probably, the SSDF produces the best data of anyone as far as strength of programs. However, some programs do not participate. I don't think you will ever have any sort of *truly* fair system. However, that does not mean that no attempt at fairness should even be attempted. That is exactly what has happened here. An arbitrary decision was made. Now, that does not mean that it was not a good decision. The members of CCC may be vocal, but face it -- we are a tiny mob. What really matters is dollars generated (both in sales for the chess companies and publicity for the human player). I think the contest is mostly defined in terms of economics. We have to remember that these things are not designed to produce scientific data. They are designed to make money. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If you want a *real* scientific experiment, then you could make one. Just raise a million dollars and form a nice, large scientific tournament with plenty of games to ensure accuracy. It's the million dollars that's the sticking point, I think. ;-) Maybe I'm just a cynic. In any case, I think a tainted (in terms of fairness) contest is marginally better than no contest. Let's be honest. If someone just grabbed *any* single program, proclaimed it world champion (with or without any sort of corroborating evidence), and played against *any* 2700+ ELO player, we are all going to be glued to our seats watching it. For that reason, it's our fault that it happens that way.
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.