Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 18:28:50 04/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2001 at 18:41:30, Chessfun wrote: >But you always have a choice regardless of the effect. >If the choice was so bad why don't they post it?. They (SMK) just did today, since the conditions (some of them) he mentions are before the socalled negotiations. It's unlikely that they differ significantly from the original ones. >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. Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. If there had been a definite breakdown in the Millennium-BGN negotiations, I doubt that the invitation would have come as a surprise or the alternative qualification event completely unknown to Millennium. My opinion is that BGN sought a wider commercial alternative. I believe the current title for the event, participants chosen and tournament format suggests that commercial possibility. More likely than the disagreement scenario. >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. The polite thing to do would be to contact IBM and ask instead of pretending that it's a real option. I doubt they'll welcome the newfound attention or find it polite. >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. AFAIK there have been coverage of the "BGN World Championship" in various newspapers (London Times and El Pais?). I haven't checked, but I would be stunned if the name Deep Blue isn't mentioned somewhere as potential challenger. A journalist would probably add a few lines about its exploits and unknown whereabouts. A real suspense story underlined by the contracts, which have a Deep Blue clause. That certainly won't deminish publicity. And no, I don't see it as a plot. I prefer the term manipulation. If you continously make decisions in contrast to reality and ignore proper conduct then it's a real and not imaginary possibility. >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. I read the revised agreement posted by Eklund and after reading further information by SMK and the response by Amir Ban, the conclusion is obvious. It isn't ethical behaviour. Too good a chance to miss for Junior and Fritz, but unfair nonetheless. >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 !. The two of you in agreement doesn't make it true. Fact is, that Bertil manages to legitimize a tournament, where it's a virtual certainty that 50% of the participants are unlikely to show up under any circumstances by default for reasons already mentioned. And the arrangement isn't a World Championship for SMP programs, nor is it a competition to settle the strongest program. All this is indisputable. >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. Probably not, but it's unfortunate anyway IMO. If you want a 3rd party to decide the event then choosing someone completely independent is best. Dare I say ICCA. Yes, I do. >I have no idea how many they'll actually play but I think it'll be more than >two weeks. Again we're confronted with utter silence. No tournament schedule, hardware or arbitration rules given that it's autoplay. Not that it really matters, but anyway. >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. The event was arranged in secrecy, which is the important bit. I'm sure that arbitration and what have you will handle the specific tournament as any other. I've never implied that results would be manipulated. >No but it adds to my fun ! >I still see IMO no reasonable alternative given Shredder's position. It's not a question of opinion. An area open for opinions is whether Shredder is automatically qualified or an open tournament should decide. I prefer the latter, some the former. That is because both scenarios are fair ways to select a challenger. Respect for title and no discrimination. Fact is, that the proposed settlement doesn't comply to ideas about a fair competition. They call it a BGN championship, which implies certain requirements used in tournaments. Demanding that the programs must be SMP capable is debatable, but in general it's reasonable to assume that the strongest SMP program is stronger than the equivalent among single CPU programs. The correct option would therefore be an open SMP championship tournament. And as I've tried to demonstrate there are handful of strong possibilities and a few not so strong, so that is possible. So far we've only followed general procedure for a tournament, championship event or not. Program requirements, announcement, planning and execution. All this ensures fairness for everyone. Ensuring that the winner is the right one is difficult under _any_ circumstances. But it can be arranged to give a high degree of certainty using a variety of options depending on the number of applicants. Notice that if only Junior and Fritz applied then it would be alright, because the other forfeited their right by _choice_. Instead we're left with a championship were the participants are recommended in secret by an arbitrary individual. _No_ serious championship events use methods of that nature. Nor does it answer questions about the strongest program even with Shredder accepting. Again, all this is indisputable. Therefore the endresult is a match between Kramnik and the best ChessBase program. Nothing else. >Experts at tournament arrangement, is that what we were talking about. >I thought it was there qualifications in the computer chess field?. Bertil blew it. That's the truth, whether you like or not. A narrowminded selection procedure where he manages to: 1) Invite four programs, where only two is likely to show up. 2) Legitimize a new World Championship title without the World knowing. 3) To avoid finding the strongest program. 4) Disable the governing body ICCA. Mission not accomplished. >Do you think they'll know how to set the flowers or will they also need >qualification in flower arrangement?. I believe Enrique's wife is handling that part. And the snacks. >Ah I see here we are back at computer chess not tournament arranging. It's two sides of the same coin. Without guidelines eveything is chaos. That goes for all competitive events. >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?. AFAIK he's been active in computer chess circles in 10-15 years or more, from dedicated chess computers to chess programs and knows most of the people involved. Has attended numerous official computer tournaments, and probably a few unofficial, as spectator, operator and tester. Sufficiently knowledgable about ICCA to get into a argument about procedure IIRC. I don't know if he's ever run a tournament. That's what I know without commenting on his personality. I don't think that Enrique or Bertil can top that. Regards, 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.