Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:17:48 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 09:47:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 15:10:29, Amir Ban wrote: > >> >>Well, shame on you for a dreadful title. >> >>To the point: Shredder is as far as I am concerned still comp world champion, >>whether or not he plays the qualifiers, and if he plays, whether or not he wins. >>That being said, and at the risk of appearing dense, what does it have to do >>with it ? >> >>It's not even clear why he's not playing. The news that his objections are being >>addressed were ignored, if not by him then certainly by this forum. >> >>This newsgroup is crazy. >> >>Amir > > >I think "greed" _is_ the issue. Otherwise I can't imagine why program >authors would not simply say "Hey, Shredder holds both the WMCCC and WCCC >titles. It certainly has earned the right to challenge/play Kramnik." > >Instead we have the present debacle where everyone (well, almost everyone) >that sells a program is lining up or wanting to line up to qualify for a >chance to play Kramnik. I'd love to play him. I could certainly put together >a hardware system that would give me really good odds vs any microprogram that >currently exists. But as a charter member of the ICCA, I also respect the >titles they award. We _all_ used to respect these titles. When we challenged >Levy in 1984, we did so as the current WCCC champion. When Hsu beat him in >the late 80's, they did so holding both ACM titles. > >This nonsense of "the title is nearly a year old" doesn't cut it. Until the >next event, Shredder should be the choice. And since he has been the choice >for at least two years running, that should hold some weight. It does for >some. > >But apparently not for everybody. If we continue down this childish course, >then one month after a WMCCC or WCCC event, someone could begin to dispute >the title with "but my program is now improved since that event and it is no >longer clear that the current champion could beat me..." Heck, this could be >done one week (or one day) after the tournament ends. > >I guess the title means nothing today. Which is a real shame for those of us >that _started_ the ICCA to head off this kind of stuff and put a serious >organization in place to handle such things... > >If it isn't about "greed" (as in publicity wanted for a specific program) >then why aren't all the amateur programs lining up and demanding a shot? As >I said, given the right hardware I would be quite happy to play a match with >_anybody_ and would be pretty sure I would win. Yet _I_ think Shredder is >the right program to play Kramnik. Because he won the two tournaments I think >are most important. > >I think that ignoring that is just a form of "sour grapes"... > >However, in looking back over the history of microcomputer chess tournaments, >this _has_ been a pretty common theme. I suppose that is why the older ACM >events were more fun. No commercial programs. No odd stuff... I think this is too one-sided. I agree with you that world-champion vs world-champion is the way to go. But.... since it has been decided elsewhere the match is about the "best program" (which is always debatable) I think that some programmers have the right to be become a bit greedy as you put it. It makes quite a difference in fact it is the difference. Ed
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.