Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:04:15 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 09:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 05:52:26, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On April 17, 2001 at 00:15:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2001 at 23:03:49, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2001 at 22:39:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 16:39:37, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 16:24:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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..." >>>>>> >>>>>>That would indeed be a nice gesture and in compliance with tournament results as >>>>>>you mention. But I seriously doubt that the invited programs still left will >>>>>>miss this golden opportunity for publicity. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mogens. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let's see if any have the courage to stand up (or sit down) and do what >>>>>is right. I doubt it, but I might be surprised... >>>> >>>>In all these posts in favor of Shredder you are making, you are forgetting >>>>one fact. They have been trying to negotiate for three months and have failed. >>>> >>>>What do you do when you can't reach agreement on terms? you look elsewhere, >>>>which is exactly what has happened. >>>> >>>>Also who says this has to be billed as the World Champion (Human) v The world >>>>Champion (Computer)? As I understand it they wish to play a match with the >>>>strongest computer program, there was no requrement that a known strongest >>>>already existed. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>I think that the "strongest" program is quite obvious. The ACM events >>>are played under controlled conditions with (generally) the authors or a >>>competent representative present to run the engines. Shredder has won >>>everything for the last 2-3 years... >>> >>>If SMK couldn't agree to terms, then I would agree that Kramnik should >>>"move on" and pick another program. However, I suspect that the "sticking >>>point" was nothing more than "How much will you pay me to play the match?" >>>And I don't see why a "rich company" should get to replace a "poor programmer" >>>just due to wealth... The ICCA titles _do_ mean something, since the ICCA is >>>associated with FIDE and has sanctioning rights for the WCCC and WMCCC titles >>>which are the only _official_ titles in computer chess. >> >>But the point Sarah is making is that the latest news from Millenium is that >>they have said no. It means Shredder put itself out of the game. More: the >>next "world championship" (as they call it) now is played between 2 programs. >> >>This is a laughable situation, softly speaking. >> >>Ed > > >Supposed _I_ set up a tournament to choose the program to play? And then >suppose _I_ said "if you want in, send me $50,000 to enter your program."?? I would negotiate with you a lower the price :-) Seriously, a play-off costs money anyway so I don't have a problem with a reasonable entry fee. >Would you enter even if you _knew_ Rebel xx was the best in the world? And >risk that kind of money to get in knowing that one game can be lost due to a >bad book line or bug? > >Charging an entry fee is a bit of a joke, IMHO. No, the ICCA does the same. Professionals pay more than amateurs, a fair system. >It means the deeper your pockets, the better your chances... Nothing new under the sun, see the ICCA tournamnets. - entry fee(s) - plain ticket(s) - hotel costs - new hardware - time (holidays) Amateur or professional, it will cost you. 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.