Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:41:30 04/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 17:17:28, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 17, 2001 at 14:34:50, Chessfun wrote: > > >That was regarding the change from a specific match to a qualification round. No >info on the prelimenary negotiations. But you always have a choice regardless of the effect. If the choice was so bad why don't they post it?. >>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. No that simply supports that they claimed they would accept conditions, which maybe they didn't. Without as above the reason negotiations broke down I'll guess we'll never know and it's all speculation. >If you have ethical standards then you don't always have a choice. No, there is always a choice regardless of ethics. Whether you make the ethical one is a different matter. >That is nonsense, because Deep Blue wouldn't be able to play in the >qualification if assembled. Deep Blue isn't just software. Naturally I'm aware of that, however IMO it's still polite to mention the candidates match to IBM as they originally created the software, hardware combination which beat Kasparov. >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. Ok then how will this recognizable name be used. What headlines? there have been none and will be none as it isn't playing. You take everything as some plot to gain either money or favor as in the Deep Blue invite. >>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. How can you even mention ethics when you know none of the conditions nor terms which were accepted? As I said your just to critical. >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? Again you say this about DB without no knowledge of the events. IMO both Bertil and Enrique would have tried there best to avoid the single distributor arrangement that we are left with. However as Bertil has explained and I agree the choices are rather limited....around and around we go !. >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. Who was close to Chessbase? Enrique? he also is a beta tester for Rebel and Shredder as far as I know so I can't see anything suspicious. >I agree :-). Yes !! :-) >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. I have no idea how many they'll actually play but I think it'll be more than two weeks. >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. As you and I both read, the tournament/match will be open to media. The games will no doubt be replayed by the owners of each program. Again I think your beating a dead horse. >>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. No but it adds to my fun ! I still see IMO no reasonable alternative given Shredder's position. >>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. Experts at tournament arrangement, is that what we were talking about. I thought it was there qualifications in the computer chess field?. Do you think they'll know how to set the flowers or will they also need qualification in flower arrangement?. >>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. Ah I see here we are back at computer chess not tournament arranging. You make this statement. Explain what qualifications he has without his help to your knowledge that confirm what you have wrote. Or was it just off the cuff?. 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.