Author: Chessfun
Date: 09:26:31 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 05:50:31, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 19, 2001 at 20:57:38, Chessfun wrote: > >>Then it still must come out that they asked at some point. Same thing lose, >>lose. Then you would say that was also a set up. > >How can asking be lose-lose situation? That's complete nonsense, since it's the >proper way to ensure that someone can participate or not. Especially given the >circumstances surrounding Deep Blue. The alternative is much worse, so they >can't both be covered by the "lose" label. No it isn't. Your argument about knowing DB wasn't available and therefore wanting publicity can also be argued from the other side if no mention to IBM was made. Then under your second argument simply checking wihtout making it public, it would come out during questions at places like this. When they still therefore get the advertizment you claimed in your original argument. So it's damned if you do damned if you don't. >>Jumping ship how. If he chooses to do so prior to the next release of Junior >>is that considered unethical?. > >It doesn't have anything to do with the next release of Junior or what company >he'll join then. It's about participating in ICCA events, eg. World >Championships, and then abandon the organization for another for monetary gain >while being a member of ICCA. What? that means Junior can't participate in ANY other events except those sanctioned by the ICCA? >How am I supposed to know? I could mention Ferret, Crafty or PConners, but I >wouldn't know and neither would you. They would probably have a very hard time >beating Deep Fritz. That is not the point, however. The point is proper openness >as I've mentioned a few times before. It is the point. The point is that a tournament consisting of x (notice removal of 10) rounds could remove the best program. The chances of this happening over an event with fewer programs is less likely. All the programs you named are non commercial although maybe not a requirement, I am sure BGN would have thought it was. >We don't even know if the qualifier will use two eight CPU machines or just two >duals. Somehow the latter sounds most likely, depending on the generosity of the >machine sponsor of course. I agree. >>Read above. Any program can will win a tournament give it 40 match games and >>it's another story. > >Actually, autoplaying forty games isn't particularly decisive. If the eventual >winner had defeated four, or more, different programs in thirty-forty game >matches then it's something else. That could have been arranged easily IMO. Agh this I agree with a little more than the tournament. You originally wrote about the thing taking a week or so. To play as you just wrote say 30 games with 5 engines is 300 games at about 8 day. So even then we are left with 6 weeks. I can't see BGN wanting a 6 week tournament to decide which program should play. >The text could easily be ancient news. If it was recent, why is there no mention >of the challengers? And why not write that the venue is Cadaques? Or that the >Man vs. Machine match will take place in Bahrain? All info is already known. I >tend to believe someone quoting from an actual invitation more than an undated >webpage. That was all I was able to find. Now I see at http://www.kasparov.com also a notice but again no mention of World Championship. >The endresult is clear and so is Bertil's account of his contemplations. They >weren't very impressive. A complete newbie could select commercial engines by >SMP capability. The reluctance to let go of the single cpu progs was quite >touching though. He didn't add Deep Blue IIRC, so that serves him some credit. >BGN took care of that part. How do you know BGN didn't take care of the commercial only part? 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.