Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:08:50 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 01:22:14, Chessfun wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 22:06:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 19, 2001 at 20:36:58, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On April 19, 2001 at 06:37:35, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 18, 2001 at 23:51:36, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>Amir never wrote anything that proves the distributor had anything >>>>>to do with it. >>>> >>>>That's true. But I assume that ChessBase have funded tournament participation in >>>>human GM tournaments in the past for Fritz and Junior. That is why I doubt that >>>>ChessBase wasn't consulted by Amir. >>>> >>>>Of course, it's pure speculation. But with a financial agreement existing >>>>between the two and given the commercial possibilities in a match against >>>>Kramnik, I doubt ChessBase kept absolutely quiet. >>>> >>>>>Amir wrote they negotiated, the same as Shredder could >>>>>have. >>>> >>>>No, he wrote that they negotiated _after_ Ossi said: We're out! That is >>>>something different. The negotiations didn't result in major changes, so the >>>>argument isn't valid. >>> >>>The argument is about whether Chessbase stacked the deck as you termed it. >>>Either that is correct or it isn't. Nothing Amir said indicates that is so. >>>Whether they negotiated prior to Shredder withdrawl or after I don't see as >>>relevant. >>> >>>Sarah. > > >>Mogens is right here. Obviously the two remaining entries are ChessBase >>programs. You might think that is a coincidence. I find that a bit hard >>to swallow. But then I have seen many of the older micro tournaments and >>watched the "fixing" that went on. So this doesn't seem odd at all by those >>standards. > > >I don't think it's coincidence. I think they are the best two available >commercial programs remaining. And since they themselves didn't pick >which programs should or shouldn't be invited how did they themselves >stack any deck?. Who picked them? A public vote by computer chess experts? Or one or two people that _can_ (not _were_ as I don't know that for sure) be influenced. > >>Since Ferret finished higher than fritz or junior at the last WCCC event, >>Ferret should have been the next choice if Shredder / SMK were not interested. >>Bruce was not even contacted. Does that seem normal or a bit odd? Especially >>since Ferret fits the so-called "deep" paradigm.... although I hate that term. > >After a what 10 round event from a tournament what 1-1/2 yrs ago. Ferret >should have been chosen?. Ferret don't actually play many games to be able >to compare it's strength. It does on ICC but that's at 5/3 mostly. Naturally >Ferret like Crafty fits the SMP requirement, however it would seem easier for >the BGN to attract sponsors using a commercial entry. > >Sarah. You begin to see the light. "sponsors"... and therein lies a small problem.
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.