Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 14:17:28 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 14:34:50, Chessfun wrote: >You always have a choice. They have posted their position as to why >they choose not to play. That was regarding the change from a specific match to a qualification round. No info on the prelimenary negotiations. >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. All that actually supports the possibility of lack of choice. If everything was in the hands of Kramnik and BGN then there would be nothing to decide. So it's very likely that BGN simply discarded Millennium for unknown reasons, which matches the "out of the blue" message on the webpage. Either that or a completely unacceptable condition, thereby also depriving choice by forcing a no. If you have ethical standards then you don't always have a choice. >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? The challenge date is certainly late 2000. But the info on the Bahrain deal was early this year, which didn't involve Millennium, or so it seems. The details of the match must therefore have been later. However, it might have been early enough to justify the plural tense of month. Not exactly exhaustive negotiations by any means though. Bertil said he would publish something at CSS later on the specifics. Maybe there'll be something interesting. >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. That is nonsense, because Deep Blue wouldn't be able to play in the qualification if assembled. Deep Blue isn't just software. Don't be naive. It's a recognizable name for anyone not associated with computer chess on a regular basis. Makes good headlines, since noone knows that it can't participate. >And what is wrong with Chessbase accepting the conditions? Nothing at all given the potential publicity. It's difficult to demand ethics from a commercial company without knowing the full story. >Seems to be exactly what Millennium said they'd do when they challenged >Kasparov. Maybe they did, but felt shafted when they got the invitation. Noone knows the details yet. >Again you know nothing of how the conditions came about. >So to use the words above is simply IYO and fantasy. No, and neither do you. I do know that Deep Blue was a scam (swindle, smokescreen) and I do know that it would be unlikely that Millennium would participate given chain of events. This results in two ChessBase programs battling it out, which therefore was a foregone conclusion. Right? To me it's suspicious if something like that is agreed upon in secrecy, and involving someone close to ChessBase. Maybe nothing, but it doesn't look good. >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. With any tournament form it's possible to eliminate the best program. Depending on hardware available, each program can play 2-3 games a day. More if it's small pools or knockout and doesn't require as much planning. >Is that honestly >enough to eliminate possibly the best program? or cause it isn't. I agree :-). >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. Supervision is in the arrangement and the games must be checked and so on. The number of games won't be sufficient for deciding the strongest program. Not even if they played for a fortnight uninterrupted. Luckily for them, DB and Shredder can't make it LOL. The choice between an inconclusive, open and diverse tournament and a secret inconclusive match between two engines is obvious IMO. You're cheering on the wrong horse, even though it's winning. I hope you understand the concept of ethics and fairness. >LOL too funny. Previous tournaments or my knowledge of them which believe >me is pretty good, have nothing whatsoever to do with this match. Correct, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that there weren't any reasonable alternatives to the current arrangement. The tournaments played in the past proves you're wrong about that. A "LOL" now and then doesn't change that. >Actually I think the majority would see them as experts in this field. I'm sure they're experts on how to install and run commercial programs. Tournament arrangement isn't a skill they possess. >Another poll question LOL. No probably Thorsten's connections would have >too many votes in that poll. Ironically, Thorsten Czub is probably more knowledgable about computer chess than any of them. Mogens.
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.