Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 07:34:34 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." > The organisers can do exactly whatever they want when it comes to finding a challenger. They can call the challenge match by anything they want, and they are not calling it a "World Championship", although that would be quite legal to do so. Nobody has a monopoly on "World Champion" as an expression. To call, as an outsider of the BGN, for an open challenge match, an invited challenge match, that program X or program Y should challenge, that no program should challenge, that an SSDF program should challenge, that experts should decide, that the World Champ program shoud play, whatever, is all *political*. A case can be made out, using whatever logical construct is available, for any of the above options, or any combination of them, or something different. Equally all or any options can be attacked or argued with, using yet more 'logical' constructs. Nobody has a monopoly on how it should be. There's right and wrong on all sides. In my humble opinion, the attempt to promote Shredder 8only* by yourself and Bruce Moreland, has no more or less merit than any other case. All it appears to be doing is allowing yourselves to take a spurious moral high ground in which you both appear to be somehow more worthy than those 'terrible' commercials, whose 'low moral' levels you keep on referring to.
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.