Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:01:14 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 09:49:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 17, 2001 at 00:25:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 16, 2001 at 22:24:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On April 16, 2001 at 19:01:03, Christophe Theron 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By this reasonning, the program that must play against Kramnik is the WMCCC 2000
>>>>SHREDDER ON A SINGLE CPU. Because this is the program which won the 2000 WMCCC.
>>>>
>>>>Allowing another version of the program or the hardware (in particular in the
>>>>number of processors) is allowing an unknown entity to take part to the match.
>>>>In this case, I do not see why other unknown entities would not be allowed to
>>>>take part as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't follow that twisted reasoning at all. IE if shredder won on a PIII/500,
>>>and can now use a PIII/1000, why should it not use that? It would _obviously_
>>>be even stronger. Ditto for a multiple-cpu machine.
>>>
>>>The _program_ and _author_ earned the right to play this match. That program
>>>_should_ play. And it should use the fastest hardware platform it can use.
>>>
>>>As far as unknown entities, you had the chance to participate and become the
>>>world computer chess champion. You didn't compete. SMK did. I believe that
>>>gives him the right as silicon world champion to compete with the carbon
>>>world champion. You don't get to duck the tough events then try to cash in on
>>>the publicity in such a match later. SMK took the chance, won the WMCCC and
>>>WCCC events, and is the _obvious_ choice for any match.
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
>>
>>Do you mean that because I did not participate in the last WMCCC I have nothing
>>to claim?
>>
>>Chess Tiger took part in the 2000 WMCCC. It even finished 3rd...
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>I was talking about the "WCCC" where unlimited hardware is allowed. That is
>_the_ title to hold within the ICCA. The WMCCC title is not as respected since
>the hardware is limited there...
>
>This was the event where Bruce and SMK met to determine the champion. I don't
>remember where it was as I didn't attend either.
It was in Paderborn in 1999 and I was there with Chess Tiger 11.9.
Christophe
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.