Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 01:50:01 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 00:05:14, Chessfun wrote: >No I get it. What you don't get is what your saying. >Why complain about the event without Shredder and in the same breath >complain about the programmer not being able to operate the program. No, you don't get it. I'm complaining about the event with or without Shredder because of the selection process made and nothing else. The comment on how to operate a program is independent of who's participating in the event. And just like there are rules on running a tournament, there are rules concerning operating a program. That should be simple enough. >If Shredder is out, it's out and operator involvement is IMO one of >the smallest reasons for it. The main one would seem that Shredder >isn't automatically qualified. Naturally, that and a few other reasons is why Millennium isn't there. Noone questions that. >No you have written your opinion on what's fair. Like for example Shredder >being an automatic choice, which I don't happen to agree with. You ahve then >written what you think is fair regarding how the participants should be chosen. >Again I don't agree with that either. That's not just my opinion. They are rules on how to run tournaments, which would have applied since the qualifier is a tournament and not a match. It's a match now, but that irrelevant for the arrangements made before that was known. To put it in layman's terms. We have to solve a situation, where the rules are known for doing that. Do we make up new rules? No, we do not. Especially without consulting the governing body ICCA. But I would like to know your selection process and why it's fair. >My preferring of commercial engines is wanting the development of professional >programs, which will trickle down to further development of amateur programs. You don't give a damn about the development of amateur programs. Restricting the selection to commercial programs instead of a open tournament doesn't accomplish that. That is obvious I think. You're only interested in speeding up the process of a new commercial release. Nice try LOL. >I know what they can alter and what some do. That don't be I have to agree >that it's the best way to determine if program a is stronger than b or which >program is the best or World Champion. That is the accepted format for tournaments and matches. And yes, it does mean that the program is best or stronger. Why? Because the terms are equal to all participating programs, which all have the same possibilities. The DB-Kasparov match was done like that and Kramnik-ChessBase will so too. That makes it the relevant format. >I have the idea. It's my reasoning as to why SMK has won the previous World >Championships. Again because it's done don't mean that I have to agree with it. No, you're right, it does not. But there are rules for a reason, sanctioned by the organization ICCA. That is why players complain to FIDE when the make strange changes to the accepted format. >In the same way as you don't agree with the format chosen now. I have nothing against the format, but it's not the way you run tournaments and matches on an international scale. You can't run a private tournament and claim World Championship status. Otherwise you and I and anybody else could do it. >Well in this case as I understand both programmers are willing to allow >their programs to be run by Enrique and trust his results. Not surprisingly, since they have nothing to lose and know about the publicity value. They wouldn't be in contention that easily under normal circumstances, so why waste time complaining. But they did get irrelevant changes to the three month rule and a refund. One small step for Amir Ban and one giant leap for computer chess? No, not really. Regards, Mogens
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.