Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:34:50 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 06:00:30, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 22:37:24, Chessfun wrote: > >>I'm not sure either Amir or Franz would see it like that. >>Shredder had a choice and it made it. > >Again you're relying on information you don't have available. Without knowing if >the breaking point was money, conditions or something else, you can't know if >they had a "choice". You always have a choice. They have posted their position as to why they choose not to play. When they challenged Kasparov they wrote: "All details regarding the playing conditions can be at Mr. Kasparov's choice: the date for the match, the number of games, the host city and venue, the rate of play, etc.. All these points and others can be decided by Mr. Kasparov because the SHREDDER team respects the needs of world's strongest chess player" So from that we get that the conditions for such a match with the current World champion shouldn't matter. >>After months of negotiation it went knowhere. > >You don't know if the negotiations have been taking months, the exact progress >or the problems, if there were any. OK the negotiations started I assume naturally when Millennium first posted it on their website Late 2000. That's say 4 month's.....ok or? >I might add that they invited Deep Blue, which is neither commercial or in one >piece. But maybe Han Solo (or whatever his name is) is working all night in his >lab to get ready. I kind of doubt that. Just a commecial ploy as this event. No I think that was out of simple politeness. Kasparov had lost to Deep Blue therefore if IBM wish to spend time and money to get it ready the question should be asked of them. >This proposed match is pure exhibition, ie. Kramnik vs. ChessBase, despite the >forseeable headlines. Nothing else at all. And this is backed up by the >conditions relayed here by the organizers. Apparently, ChessBase agreed to just >about anything presented before them to exploit the (maybe) troublesome >negotiations between Millennium and BGN. And what is wrong with Chessbase accepting the conditions? Seems to be exactly what Millennium said they'd do when they challenged Kasparov. >Arranging an invitational with conditions that they knew would scare Millennium >off (otherwise there would have been no negotiation problems) is a blatant scam, >giving the current "surprising" result. A pure attempt at making the challenger >event legitimate. There's no need to infer secret money transactions as TC does, >it stinks enough already. Again you know nothing of how the conditions came about. So to use the words above is simply IYO and fantasy. >The format is easily adjustable given the number of engines. A pool division >with seedning according to tournament results in ICCA approved tournaments with >many engines. Give it a week and you'll reach a reasonable amount of games in >each pool with autoplay. With author participation, fewer matches but smaller >margin for random error. The playoff could be twenty matches. With very few >engines then a knockout format with seedning. Still not a real problem. IMHO in the tournament you project it is possible to produce a winner that isn't the best program. Even an autoplayer tournament takes a considerable amount of time. Give it a week and you'll be lucky to have 49 total games or 7 per program assuming 7 programs. Is that honestly enough to eliminate possibly the best program? or cause it isn't. >Another thing worthy of consideration is the current arrangement. How many days >do you really think they will go on with supervision, accomodations and media >interest (and Bertil's vacation)? I doubt they'll go beyond a week, probably >less. How many games will they play in that time? Maybe four or five a day, >which results in approx. twenty to thirty games. Not enough to demonstrate >strongest. And since it's autoplayeer games, they should be checked for errors >as well. I'm not sure supervision is required. In this case with only two programs playing. That IMO would now be a decision for the authors. But your time frame/games played reference sounds contrary to your above paragraph of finishing in a week. >Well, I'm just sad that you've eaten the scam with hook, line and sinker. LOL I've only eaten pizza (don't even know what scam is? is it like fishy?) :-) >Apparently not. If you did, then you would be knowledgable about previous >official tournaments where they participated and that they're no pushovers >judging by performance. LOL too funny. Previous tournaments or my knowledge of them which believe me is pretty good, have nothing whatsoever to do with this match. >As for the experts. Well, I don't think most people here are very impressed. >Enrique manages to taint his reputation by arranging a invitational with a given >result, while also being a beta tester for that company. And Bertil offers the >SSDF stamp of approval to this arrangement knowingly or not. All in all, not >something that gives bragging rights. Actually I think the majority would see them as experts in this field. Another poll question LOL. No probably Thorsten's connections would have too many votes in that poll. Sarah.
This page took 0.01 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.