Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:43:05 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 09:21:48, Chessfun wrote: >Still lose, lose....no?. No, of course not. I think it's very acceptable and would be to most, if they asked IBM and kept it out of the announcements until they knew for certain. That's an honest way to do business. >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. The manipulation was initiated by BGN, not ChessBase or Amir Ban as I already wrote once in the previous message. They're just exploiting the situation to their benefit. So the manipulation theory isn't going anywhere. We're still talking about a bogus championship, so nothing has changed. >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? Who said I spoke to a member? I presumed that Amir Ban is a member of ICCA, since he has participated in their events. That is an assumption, but quite reliable given the ones presented here. In that case, humping ship is unethical. >I haven't avoided it. Without Deep Shredder's participation how can it determine >the strongest program? Exactly, it can't. Either you accept the title or arrange a legitimate tournament, where it is at stake. Nothing new and not the case here. >Aside from which is the issue of strongest at what? Given the eventual match with Kramnik it should be the strongest SMP program under real match conditions to simulate the eventual match. >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. Could you please stop repeating that ten round argument. That is your fabrication and complete nonsense. There's no problems with an open knockout tournament with seedning and several games or similar arrangements. There's a chance that the winner isn't the strongest program, but that goes for a rigerous preselection as well. >I thought that was what consultants did, make selections, suggestions etc?. Consultants do offer advice, selections and suggestions. However, that is not how you decide sporting events. They're not supposed to influence the outcome. This is the case here. >No, I'm arguing that I want to see a commercial product represented. Unfortunately, that wasn't a requirement imposed on the consultants. And the legitimacy of strength or title doesn't depend on what you want to see. >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. That is not correct. Nothing suggests that timeframe or commercial venture made a restriction on the possible choices necessary. Especially if the organizers were interested in a legitimate opponent. I might add that Deep Blue wasn't available. And you may reason that the same was forseeable with Shredder. >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. No, we are not LOL. We cannot make that claim without an open championship. Sarah, I'm amazed that you can write somthing like that. This means that you can become the strongest program by sufficiently clever restrictions. That's a novel concept of fairness. >They can call it what they wish makes no difference to me. I'm sure that most of the uninformed observers will take a similar stance, but it isn't becoming of someone who is supposed to be informed. That's embarassing IMO. >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. The problem isn't "BGN", but "Computer World Chess Championship". It hasn't got anything to do with either "World" or "Championship". Just as legitimate as your Easter championship. >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? I'm surprised that you need to ask that question. They're promoting a bogus title as justification for the match against Kramnik. That's equivalent of fraud. >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. Of course it's Levy's. There would have been a dispute no matter what. Obscuring the WC title by adding a bogus one doesn't happen in peace. >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. The operative word here is "appear". Bertil wasn't hired to offer honest opinions, but as an computer-chess expert. Now the SSDF is associated, unfairly, with a bogus championship title. 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.