Author: Albert Silver
Date: 15:46:52 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 17:05:08, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>On April 22, 2001 at 15:50:06, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On April 22, 2001 at 14:02:59, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>>
>>>On April 22, 2001 at 12:26:25, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have received from the ICCA President David Levy a copy of an open letter
>>>>concerning the Kramnik match. I agree with all the points of his proposal and I
>>>>agree to participate in a qualifying match for the right to play Kramnik
>>>>according to the terms of the ICCA. Below you will find a copy of this open
>>>>letter.
>>>>
>>>>Best regards
>>>> Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, author of Shredder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>An Open Letter to Professor Enrique Irazoqui
>>>>[ The Cadaques tournament and the Bahrain match ]
>>>>
>>>>Dear Professor Irazoqui,
>>>>
>>>[ snipped ]
>>>
>>>IMHO this 'open' letter is what is known in the trade as a 'spoiler'.
>>>
>>>When it comes to it in Bahrain the nature and type and selection process for the
>>>cyber opponent will be completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>>The public will not care one jot nor one tittle for complaints about 'fairness'
>>>in selection of a chess machine.
>>>
>>>One chess machine is much the same as any other, and probably completely
>>>unfathomable in any case.
>>>
>>>Fairness to members of the human race is one thing, but nobody gives a monkeys
>>>about 'fairness' to a machine, and probably rightly so.
>>
>>Well, let's also remember that no one thinks it is really about what is fair to
>>the programs but rather their programming creators: the programmers. When one
>>says it's not fair to Shredder, it implicitly means that it isn't fair to the
>>programmer and/or developing company.
>>
>
>Once the program is created it stands and falls on its own merits out in the big
>wide world.
>
>At this point the programmer is irrelevant. He no longer influences the program,
>the program produces whatever it produces itself, according to pre-stored
>patterns and code.
>
>The issue of 'fairness' to the programmer doesn't arise. He no longer matters as
>far as the program and its output is concerned. In fact the chess machine system
>doesn't even know he exists.
Perhaps we are talking about two different things so I'll try to be clearer. If
an event is organized in order to determine the most eligible challenger for
Kramnik, and the process is done through hand selection, however competent and
well-meant, disallowing other programs, with similar qualifications, then it is
not the program that is being slighted, it is the programmer. If we are talking
about the actual physical setup of the program (not that that is the case here),
and one program runs on inferior hardware or merely inferior settings (ex: prog
1 gets 1Mb hash, and prog 2 gets 256 Mb, though both benefit just as much from
these hash settings - again this is purely hypothetical) then again, it isn't
the program that is being slighted, it is the programmer, whose chances to see
his work compared fairly with that of others dashed to pieces. I hardly think
anyone will be weeping "poor Fritz" or "poor whatever the program is". So in
both cases, I only see the programmer as the entity coming up with the short end
of the stick.
Now, the organizers have every right to choose as they please, but let's not
talk about fairness to all or any such nonsense. Let's just say that was the
process, and end of story. Done that way, there's very little to say IMO. If you
try to label it as something with everyone having had a fair consideration, and
everyone equals two or three programs (DB doesn't count) then you have a
problem. I see no mention of that being the case, so as far as I'm concerned:
"that's the process, and end of story".
Albert
>
>Now it is just a machine, no feelings, no morals, no ethics, just pre-programmed
>to 'play' chess and 'win'.
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.