Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:21:48 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: >>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. Maybe we could ask Thorsten's spy? >What reports? The one is the "News of the World". >>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. Still lose, lose....no?. >>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. From reading what Bertil wrote elsewhere are we still certain Chessbase will be the distributor of the Junior version playing in this match?. Under the assumption that it isn't your manipulation theory would dissapear. >>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. Then you could simply have said Unthical to a member of the ICCA a few posts ago instead of using the word as it applied to everything. BTW which member was it you spoke to? >The requirement wasn't commercial or not. Another fact, which you constantly >avoid, is that the current qualifier doesn't determine the strongest program. I haven't avoided it. Without Deep Shredder's participation how can it determine the strongest program? Aside from which is the issue of strongest at what? >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. Yes make a tournament, but to what level of certainty as to finding the strongest program in comp v comp out of the participants?. We have been down this road elsewhere a 10 round don't do it. >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. I thought that was what consultants did, make selections, suggestions etc?. >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. No, I'm arguing that I want to see a commercial product represented. I'm not arguing in favor of Chessbase, I'm simply saying given the choices, timeframe and commercial venture that the best available programs for use on an 8 cpu machine were chosen. >Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Then you know that we're not having either >Kramnik vs. WC or Kramnik vs. "Strongest"? The that'll do is that if that's what were left with, that's what were left with. In this case without Shredder we are getting Kramnik v Strongest comp v comp on 8 cpu's. >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? They can call it what they wish makes no difference to me. But I see little wrong with adding the BGN in front of it, same as adding anyone elses name. Sarah's den World championship is happening now in Easter 2. Admitedly it isn't commercial but other sports such as boxing have many titles. WBC, WBA, IBF (I think) so why can't the BGN decide to call it what they wish? >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. That assumes the message is totally Levy's. Also as is known his relationship with GM Ray Keene isn't too hot so anything Keene does is likely a cause of dispute. >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. Again in this case on 8 cpu's Bertil and Enrique choose what appear to be the strongest available programs under the constrants of time. What Bertil should do is give his honest opinion which is what he did. Sarah.
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.