Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 12:19:02 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 12:39:02, Chessfun wrote: >OK let's have a simple question and answer. >Do you favor; >a) Shredder should play >b) A tournament/matches to decide If there was an open and announced qualification tournament conducted using ICCA rules and regulations without any kind of preselection, I would prefer that option as I've mentioned several times before. Without these requirements, it would have to be Shredder as World Champion. Because the only alternative to accepting Shredder as automatic challenger would be a legitimate qualification tournament (see above). >You could of course still cloud it by saying something to the effect of >it depends on whether it's called a World Title etc. But I'm hoping to >understand as I have seen you post in favor of both. That is because it's not as simple as you want it to be. The essential part is fairness and equal opportunity regardless of financial advantages. A tournament without these requirements is not a legitimate reason to ignore an aquired title. I've never said anything that differs from the above. >I might be indifferent, but there you are the only one arguing and arguing each >side of the issue each time it suits you argument. As in DB being mentioned and >not being specific as with the question above. My main concern as always is my perception of general principles. I'm merely arguing simple and generally accepted rules of proper conduct. Whether it be the reason for having governing bodies and titles or why people do what they do. That is, giving my perspective on what is right and wrong. Judging if this arrangement is right or wrong in essence is easy. The details surrounding it are trickier and mostly speculation. However, no interpretation thereoff changes the initial judgement. >Premises are flawed again without saying which you are in favor of. Title or legitimate qualification tournament. I wonder how many times I've written that sentence in various permutations. >You don't care, be serious. You care more about arguing each side of the coin. I actually care about fairness in every aspect of life. This one as well. >Which programmers do you care about that feel they've been bypassed that can't >make a case for themselves. Bob, Bruce, Christophe, SMK. Do you think they need >you to make there case?. No, I don't think so. They've been more than eloquent in their explanations. However, I do feel that everyone should make up their own mind about the situation and contemplate the consequences. Free your mind as Christophe mentions. Maybe you ought to evaluate by yourself what your opinion means to the authors of the programs that you support, preferably in detail I think. That would be the easy one. >This statement indicates you are not in favor of a) above. That is correct under certain circumstances mentioned above (and below). >Yet you have argued like that was what you favored. No, I have not. Except when we preclude an open and fair challenge. Something like this: Current arrangement vs. Shredder -> Shredder wins. Current arrangement vs. Legitimate Qualification Tournament -> LQT wins. Shredder vs. LQT -> LQT wins. Does that make it easier to understand? 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.