Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 22:18:07 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 18:02:23, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 13:52:05, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On April 19, 2001 at 09:46:43, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 18, 2001 at 02:02:34, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On April 17, 2001 at 16:06:21, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 17, 2001 at 13:51:20, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 17, 2001 at 13:42:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 17, 2001 at 13:19:19, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We are the World Champion until the ICCA new tournament will be held and another >>>>>>>>program win the title. >>>>>>>>If we do not recognize such a title and event there is no reason to make such >>>>>>>>event anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sandro Necchi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The event is recognized for what it is: a nice event with a lot of randomness in >>>>>>>the result, but which is fine because it is the only opportunity for programmers >>>>>>>and computer chess businessmen to meet each other. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not agre. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I personally enjoyed a lot participating in person to the WMCCC 1997 (Paris) and >>>>>>>the WCCC 1999 (Paderborn). I have nice memories of everybody, and for me that >>>>>>>was a dream come true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But you should not assume people are so stupid that they do not understand the >>>>>>>low reliability of such events. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's your opinion! >>>>>>A World champion title is a title! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Right, but it is interesting to know what is the exact value of this title by >>>>>understanding how you get it. >>>> >>>>The same is true for Kramnik. I do not believe he is the strongest chess player, >>>>but he is the world champion having defeated Kasparov. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>If the event was so reliable, why would the SSDF results be so interesting for >>>>>>>everybody? Why would testers play home tournaments? >>>>>> >>>>>>That's their choice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What you are doing here is trying to disinform people about the reliability of >>>>>>>chess events. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am not trying to disinform anyone. I did not say that winning such event >>>>>>automatically means that the program is the strongest. >>>>>>I say that it becomes the World Champion! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>We are making progress here, Sandro. >>>> >>>>I never told something different. >>>>> >>>>>I guess our disagreement is smaller than I thought. >>>>> >>>>>We can agree that the program that owns the World Champion title is not >>>>>automatically the strongest. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>So it is possible to have: >>>>>* on one hand the "World Champion" >>>>>* and on the other hand the "Strongest Program" >>>>> >>>>>And I still do not understand why the "World Champion" has to be picked in >>>>>priority. >>>> >>>>Because it owns the World Champion title as Kramnik does. >>>>> >>>>>It may be that most people want to see the strongest program competing. I'm sure >>>>>you can understand that. >>>> >>>>I can understand this, but I do not agree. >>>>If you will win the next WCCC I will say, Chess Tiger MUST play because it is >>>>the World Champion. >>>>This is my believe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>But it won't work. People are more and more aware that a high >>>>>>>number of games is necessary to evaluate the relative strength of chess >>>>>>>programs, and that a 7 or 9 or even 11 rounds event means close to nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>Look, I am involved in computer chess before you did, so I know this better than >>>>>>you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's a weak point, Sandro. I don't care for how long you've been into this. I >>>>>just care about facts and good points. >>>> >>>>I am telling facts. You are changing my words. >>> >>> >>> >>>I just want to point out that "I am involved in computer chess before you did" >>>brings nothing here. >>> >>>It could also be that you are simply wrong with this statement. Do you know when >>>I started chess programming? >> >>OK, tell me and let's find out. > > > >I started in 1979. I was 14. The first opening book was proposed by me to Applied Concepts in 1978. I was 24. Their reply was that they did not have enough memory available. > > > > > > >>>>>> I did not say the contrary. >>>>>>I am not trying to convince anyone that you! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I understand your point of view. I'm not saying that you are 100% wrong, but you >>>>>can also understand that people know that a World title does not mean the owner >>>>>is the best out there, and people want to see the best pitted against Kramnik. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>In the tournaments organized by the ICCA, all you can do is say that there must >>>>>>>be a stength difference between the bottom and the top of the final rankings. >>>>>>>But between, say, the 5 first programs it is impossible to say which is the >>>>>>>best. >>>>>> >>>>>>if these tournaments means nothing then lets cancel them! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>They do not mean much but I like them! >>>> >>>>OK, but then why to award a World title if it does not mean something? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>And you are asking this to me? >>> >>>That's a question I have no answer for. Actually I would really like to know. >>> >>>My guess is that organizing a lottery of this kind is good for marketing. >>> >>>Every year a different guy/company gets the title and can write "World Champion" >>>on his box, and everybody is happy. After some years, everybody can claim "World >>>Champion". >>> >>>And there is of course the fact that all the computer chess people can meet, >>>talk, negociate with each other. That's invaluable, Internet communication >>>cannot replace this. >> >>I do not think everybody agrees on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>20 years ago these events were significant because there were significant >>>>>>>differences in the strength of chess programs. That's why the "Chess" program >>>>>>>was reliably leading, and that's also why Richard Lang's programs have been able >>>>>>>to do the same in the eighties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nowadays the difference in playing strength is less obvious, and the reliability >>>>>>>of the ICCA tournaments is close to nil. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are offending ICCA! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Pff... I don't think they would pretend their tournaments have an absolute >>>>>significance either. >>>>> >>>>>We all know that we participate to a big lottery when we enter a WCCC or WMCCC. >>>>>Being so vocal just because you win a lottery, even if you have some merit >>>>>because in order to win it you must be amongst the best, is just propaganda. >>>> >>>>Yes, but if you win the lottery again and again it cannot be only LUCK! >>> >>> >>> >>>Right. I believe that Stefan is much better than me at preparing or setting up >>>his program against specific opponents. That's something you can do only in >>>tournaments where you participate in person. >> >>This would important also against human players if the would allow this. Don't >>you think so? > > > >Yes. > > > > >>You are criticizing the ICCA World Champion title because of the so few games. >>Why you do not mention how Kramnik became World Champion? >>Do you think that system is more reliable? > > > >No, but in human chess it is very often very hard to get more games. Well, there are also the interzonals. Do you know? > >The key point is that human players get tired. yes, they get tired to play and prefer to make more money with less games. > >So I understand why it is not possible to get more games in human chess, and we >all have to live with this. No this is just a by-pass not to make your statements weak. > >But this is irrelevant in computer chess, so I do not see why we should limit >the number of games to the number which is usual in human chess. Well, we have been doing this for 20 years or so I do not see why to change now. > >I also do not understand why we should mimic the same time controls. In >comp-comp I think we should play faster games, and play more games. No I do not agree as the quality would decrease. > > > > >>Come on, you are interested to see your program play kramnik and I can >>understand this. > > > >Thanks. It is true, and as a result I have been telling exactly what I think. I >have probably said too much, but I am in peace with myself. Yes, I understand and had no doubts on this matter. I am in peace with myself too. To me is fine even if Program Penny running on a 386 25 Mhz is called BGD World Champion and play with kramnik. I am not interested in matches that have no competitivess on both sides. So I am not interested in this match anymore! Sandro > > > > >>Since we decited to stay out I have nothing against this, but don't tell me that >>what I am saying is not right. >>It is a matter of being coherent and not look only at one's interests. >>Pls. admit this and you'll have all my support! > > > >I think I am extremely consistent with myself. You should dig out in the >archives and find all the things I have posted since several years. > >My problem with short matches and tournament time controls and the rest is there >since ages. It's not something I have made up specially for the present case. > >I'm not trying to say you are wrong. We have some points of disagreement, but if >we tried to found out we could probably discover that we have even more points >of agreement... > > > > > Christophe
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.