Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:35:34 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2001 at 11:43:01, Amir Ban wrote: >On April 18, 2001 at 06:11:04, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > >> >> >>A lot of discussion is going on about the planned Kramnik machine match and I >>think it is necessary to give you my point of view about the whole issue. I >>refused to play in this event for various reasons which I will sum up below: >> >>· The final version of the program playing against Kramnik must be made >>available to Kramnik end of July already. This makes an match with equal chances >>impossible as it will be very easy for Mr. Kramnik to prepare and win a match >>against any program under this circumstances. I would even say that it is >>possible for human players of my strength to win a match against any program >>with this conditions. >> >>· For a computer to play the match against Kramnik he must win a qualifier >>against some other chess programs. This qualification tournament will be called >>the BGN computer world chess championships and the winner will be called the BGN >>computer chess world champion. I see no reasons to have another computer chess >>world championship and another computer chess world champion besides the ICCA >>tournaments and the ICCA champion so I will not play there. >> >>· The first time I have heard about this qualification tournament was two weeks >>before the scheduled start of this event. >> >>· The event will be played with the autoplayer and without any representative of >>the programs on site. >> >>· The starting fee for each program will be $5000. >> >>· The prize fund in the human machine match will be divided quite uneven in the >>case that Kramnik or the computer will win. In this respect the whole issue >>seems to me like an event only for Kramnik and the organizers to make big money, >>not to play a real match against a computer. >> >>· There are many more points like a clause that all the micro Deeps can be >>kicked out anytime when IBM decides to join or severe restrictions in the >>marketing of this event, but I think those given above should be sufficient to >>understand my point of view. >> >>So I have various reasons not to join this thing, each of those being enough not >>to join. I hope that all the speculations, wild guesses and accusations >>concerning my withdrawal will end, particularly of those guys who even haven’t >>seen the contract, including one of my colleagues here. >> >>Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, author of Shredder. > >We all got the same draft agreement at the same time, and more or less saw the >same problems in the terms (I think I saw some you missed), but, instead of >sending an angry "I'm out!" letter like Ossi Weiner, we negotiated. We talked to >the organizers. We told them what we cannot accept, and they told us their >constraints, and we reached terms that we can live with. They address your >objections, which as I said were similar to ours, and I think the revised terms >were even posted here by Bertil. > >When two sides want something to happen and are prepared to discuss, things have >a way of working out. Heading for the nearest exit always leaves you out. > >Amir If you negotiated the new conditions BEFORE Stefan Meyer-Kahlen walked, then you're absolutely right. If you negotiated the new conditions AFTER Stefan Meyer-Kahlen walked, then I suspect that his walking assisted your negotion significantly. -g
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.