Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:38:05 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 06:03:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. Read the history between BGN and David Levy. In the past they were partners: http://www.ishipress.com/levykeen.htm Now they are each others opponents, ICCA vs BGN both claiming a world championship. Ed >>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 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.