Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:32:08 04/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2001 at 21:28:50, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 18, 2001 at 18:41:30, Chessfun wrote: >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. For all we know it was no surprise to them. >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. Again without anything concrete, my opinion would be the breakdown would be that BGN doubted themselves whether Shredder was the best program and sought opinion elsewhere. This in itself caused the breakdown. >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. It wouldn't no. But to say it was a scam or stunt without knowledge that is true is a little strong for me. I have read most reports published and saw no mention of Deep Blue. However were the names to have appeared without Deep Blue there would have been an outcry that IBM should have been contacted. So actually in that circumstance it's just another lose, lose for them. >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. Manipulation by whom? Chessbase? please explain how all I have read so far is you speculating about methods and motives. >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. Unfair maybe by your opinion, but not unthical. >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. The first part I agree with. However again for a tournament of commercial SMP programs the known best programs were included. Again the time limitations and possibility of losing the best program under the conditions you painted earlier don't allow for such a tournament. >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. I think it is disputable. The participants were selected based upon performance and results. Deep Fritz top SSDF, Deep Junior it's TPR v Humans, Shredder as World Champion and Deep Blue as it beat Kasparov. This is seeding, the persons doing the selection you can take issue with but IMO the result speaks for itself. They have selected the strongest programs based upon credentials. >Therefore the endresult is a match between Kramnik and the best ChessBase >program. Nothing else. That'll do. >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. The logical 4 based on performance and rating. >2) Legitimize a new World Championship title without the World knowing. Never saw how this is a world championship title. >3) To avoid finding the strongest program. Under the circumstance of Shredder's withdrawl regardless of how it was approached Shredder would be out and you can use this excuse with any program being out. As you already did with Patzer and Diep. >4) Disable the governing body ICCA. You have seen nothing to know what contacts either Bertil or Enrique have or have not had elsewhere. >I believe Enrique's wife is handling that part. And the snacks. :-) >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. I never saw you use the words unbiased or fair. Reason I ask is I want to see you say it's your opinion, that as an _expert_ Thorsten is impartial. 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.