Author: Uri Blass
Date: 19:05:18 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 16:47:11, Albert Silver wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 14:25:47, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On April 17, 2001 at 14:06:56, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 17, 2001 at 04:35:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>This is yet another insult to Stefan Meyer-Kahlen. >>>> >>>>What is going on here is that many people don't recognize the legitimacy of the >>>>titles that Stefan's program has won over the years, and refuse to grant him the >>>>leadership position that he has earned in fair and open competition. >>> >>> >>> >>>I have another point of view. >>> >>>I see the current stream of events as an insult to the authors of the other very >>>good chess programs. >>> >>>What happened? First Shredder wins the WMCCC 2000 (a short tournament, be it an >>>open and fair event). But then the SSDF is forbidden to publish the results of >>>this program (an attitude which is not fair and open, who can disagree?). >>> >> >>This is simply untrue and it is hard to believe you say this without knowing >>about this ! Everyone who is able to read and remember could follow and >>understand this process without having to be involved at all simply by reading >>what both parties posted and agreed on . >> >>a.) SSDF was forbidden to test Shredder 4 >>b.) SSDF complained . >>c.) SSDF was allowed to test Shredder 5 >>d.) SSDF rejected and said they only wanted to test Shredder if they could test >>any other program by Millenium , too . >>e.) Millenium agreed to this but pointed out they can only make this statement >>for programs where they still hold the rights . >>d.) SSDF rejected to test Shredder 5 again and brought up the issue of an >>unpaied invoice of 500 dollars of some years ago ( which never was mentioned >>before ) . >> >>As all this was discussed in public anyone interested ( or not ) could easily >>follow . > >The information is there for the looking but that doesn't mean it is >outstandingly conspicuous. Magazines and ads publish the list and rankings, but >neither the details nor the existence of details. The typical buyer doesn't >typically subscribe to Chessbits for example. The typical buyer who actually >searches on the internet will look at sites such as Kasparovchess or whatnot for >reviews of the programs. The reviews will talk about how strong they are and >eventually their place on the list. They don't go into details on where they are >NOT listed. In fact MOST users won't care at all unless a big fuss is made to >explain why this is important. Tell Joe Schmoe that Chessmaster isn't on the >SSDF list and see how outraged he is. You get the drift. > >I give credit to Shredder for its accomplishments. Just amazing. However >Christophe's point is well-taken. A big question remains though: how will this >tournament organized by Enrique show which program is the most apt opponent for >Kramnik. You remember how he kept Kasaprov, the greatest attacking player in >history, under lock and stock? It's the same problem with the SSDF list, a >wonderful reference but with some very clear limitations. It says all we need to >know about which program are best at beating other programs. It says NOTHING >about how those programs will fare against a human player. Kramnik has EXTENSIVE >experience against these programs, in particular Fritz. I think he will have >little trouble with it at a slow time-control even on two dozen processors. Do >you think that getting an extra 3-4 plys will be the Kramnik killing factor? >Shredder (for example) could easily get clobbered in this private event, and >still be the toughest opponent for him. So the question remains: what will this >event prove? If you accept that, then the whole SMP question recovers its >validity, and the exclusion of other programs becomes extremely relevant. >There's nothing like playing a GM to see how it does against a GM. Beating >another program a hundred times over isn't convincing IMO. Didn't a 2100+ player >draw against Fritz in the Israeli league? On hardware that is superior to that >used by the SSDF today, yet yielding it the top spot. some facts: 1)The player's rating was more closer to 2200 then to 2100(the player was arlond hasidovsky) 2)The same player drew also against Rebel and Deep Junior(Unfortunately he did not play in the last round and this as the round when shredder played against his team. 3)The player drew most of his games and drew also against humans with better rating of 2300 and 2400. I think that hasidovsky's style is leading often to a draw against players. 4)Being the strongest player against kramnik does not need to avoid a draw against 2100 players. A draw against 2100 players can be a result of games with no mistakes but doing the position more complicate in order to cause kramnik to do mistakes is not needed if the target of the program is not to lose the match against kramnik(not losing against kramnik is a fantastic result for chess programs). Do you honestly believe >that could EVER happen against Kramnik? I don't. If the 2100 player could buy Kramnik and play at home against him then I suspect that it can happen to kramnik. Uri
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.