Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 08:15:05 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 09:45:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > It always surprised me that you never ran. > > > >>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.