Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:45:53 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 06:56:35, Duncan Stanley wrote: >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? >> >>Nobody here is going to say, "DeepFritz won BGN candidates, thus it is the best >>program." >> >>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..... > >ICCA >==== >1. Having an association of chess 'programmers' to organise a tournament and >represent 'computer chess' is a fine idea. The more amateurish the programmers >the better, provided they don't then become too holier-than-thou. > >2. The ICCA has been recycling the same 'officers' year on year ever since it >was created in the 1980's. > >3. The mechanism for 'electing' these 'officers' is seriously flawed and very >difficult to describe as democratic. > The main "flaw" is the problem of getting _anyone_ to run for the offices. There is no pay. There _is_ a set of responsibilities that take time to execute. >4. The conflict of interest created by 'representing computer chess' and being >'commercially interested in various aspects of computer chess' is too great to >put onto the shoulders of any one individual for an extended and ongoing period.
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.