Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:43:47 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 04:20:45, Robert Raese wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 22:46:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 21, 2001 at 10:17:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>As I said. Ignore the ICCA. Ignore the WCCC and WMCCC tournaments. That is >>where this is headed. And it spells the end for the usefulness of these events. >>Should we now disband the ICCA and stop wasting the time??? > >BGN event is for a different purpose that the events held by ICCA. BGN is >cashing in on an idea. ICCA is a serious tournament to find out what chess >program is #1. > >I don't think the illusion presented by BGN fools anybody who knows about >computer chess. And for this community, whose opinion really matters? Joe >Public on the street, who will give it a passing thought and forget about it? > Can you spell Deep Blue? 99.9999999% of the people on planet Earth now think that "chess is solved since DB beat Kasparov." So it _does_ matter what the general public thinks. And what they will think about this match is dead wrong... Just is they are wrong about computer supremecy in chess yet.. >Nobody here is going to say, "DeepFritz won BGN candidates, thus it is the best >program." No.. But the press is. It _already_ is saying that a match between the two best programs in the world is being used to choose Kramnik's challenger... > >That is what the ICCA was created for... to decide the matter legitimately, in a >way that is endorsed by the entire computer chess community. The public is >irrelevent to that. And I am not a programmer, but I think if I were the >respect of my collegues would matter FAR more to me than the fleeting opinion of >John Q. Public, who will believe anything he sees on TV and knows nothing of >computers OR chess. > >Can anyone say what effect this event will have on the BUYING public? If the >machine wins, will that necessarily translate into a windfall for the >commercial interests represented in the event? If the program LOSES and loses >badly, will the public interest in computer chess be decreased? Who knows? If >someone does, I'd like to hear about it..... It will make a difference. 99.9% of the "computer chess customers" have no idea about what really goes on in computer chess, what CCC is, or anything else.
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.