Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:15:39 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 11:15:05, Duncan Stanley wrote: >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. > To do this, you need to have access to a reasonable amount of travel money, which is not ever guaranteed at the places I have worked. IE the officers need to attend the yearly events, plus a meeting or two outside of those, and I could never be sure I would be able to. IE I am probably like "most" members... I can help, but can't "serve" in a formal capacity easily... Which is one reason why I don't get too irate with the elected officers. If I am going to critize them heavily, then it is also my responsibility to try to run and get elected so that I can fix what I think is wrong. It is easy to criticize. It is harder to "fix". > >> >> >> >>>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.