Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:03:45 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 00:32:08, Chessfun wrote: >For all we know it was no surprise to them. The only source so far is Millennium. Their website says "out of the blue" arrangement. And SMK, who I doubt would lie, says he knew of the event two weeks before it's scheduled to start. That doesn't imply knowledge. >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. That could be a reason. However, the lack of knowledge mentioned by SMK suggests that it was done in secrecy. Since BGN apparently has little knowledge about computer chess I wonder how they reached that doubt. >It wouldn't no. But to say it was a scam or stunt without knowledge that >is true is a little strong for me. No, it isn't. If you plan somehting that you know won't take place then it's a stunt. That is the definition. >I have read most reports published and >saw no mention of Deep Blue. What reports? >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. It would have been easy to explain that DB was disassembled. Besides, it's hardly unknown that Deep Blue hasn't played officially since Kasparov. That possibility is preferred over this stunt. And the fairness of the selection process would be even more obvious, so they added DB as deflector shield. >Manipulation by whom? Chessbase? please explain how all I have read so far >is you speculating about methods and motives. Since all the strange terms and conditions are made by BGN, they're responsible for the irregularities of the arrangement. They're trying to make a credible front for a cash machine, no interest in a real and legitimate contest. Eg. creating a bogus championship title for the purpose. ChessBase is just riding the wave. >Unfair maybe by your opinion, but not unthical. If you're a member of ICCA then it's unethical to support a new organisation for monetary gain. Resembles Kasparovs PCA attempt. >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. The requirement wasn't commercial or not. Another fact, which you constantly avoid, is that the current qualifier doesn't determine the strongest program. As for timelimitation. Even without knowing the exact number of days available it's possible to make a tournament just as reliable as the one originally proposed in the same amount of time. >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. This is not seedning, this is selection. We do not know that either Deep Fritz, Deep Junior or Deep Shredder is the strongest program. We may suspect that it's true, but we do not know. SSDF is a private organization meant as a help for consumers. Topping the list is an accomplishment, but not qulification reason by itself. The list isn't complete and it doesn't measure SMP strength. But Deep Fritz do have good results from human tournaments as Deep Junior. However, you and I both know that not everyone has that option, because it depends on funds available. There are other programs with good tpr from leagues and tournaments. And example would be PConners with a GM norm. Again you're arguing that those that have should receive again. Deep Blue is just nonsensical as explained before. This does not guarantee finding the strongest program. Fact. >That'll do. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Then you know that we're not having either Kramnik vs. WC or Kramnik vs. "Strongest"? >The logical 4 based on performance and rating. No. See above. >Never saw how this is a world championship title. To quote from the SMK message: "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." How can you arrange a World Championship without the World knowing? I also want a World Championship with my name. Care to be the computer-chess expert in charge of selection? >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. That is correct, which is why the strongest claim is nonsensical to most people knowledgable about computer chess in general. No matter how you twist and turn, there would only be the two left to compete if you use your brain. That makes the tournament a foregone conclusion and unworthy as World Championship, or even just as legitimate challenger. >You have seen nothing to know what contacts either Bertil or Enrique >have or have not had elsewhere. No, just an ironic message from the ICCA president, David Levy, where he mocks the arrangement. If asked, he would say that Shredder is the champion and that we don't need a spare. >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. I'm sure that Thorsten would be impartial as an expert. He may have (loud) personal likes and dislikes, but he wouldn't disqualify programs because of it. I'm quite positive that he would object to the idea of just selecting a few, which is what Bertil should have as an _expert_ when getting the assignment. 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.