Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 15:05:50 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 14:13:45, Gordon Rattray wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 12:30:28, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Your long analysis whould be addressed to Brain Games, not to Enrique. And Brain >>Game could say to you: it's me who organizes the match, then it's me who put the >>rules". Period. > >Sure, but people don't have to support it. > >>When we live an age when one comp tourn after another fall in pieces, we just >>should be happy to have some extra events, no matter the shortcomings. The issue >>of the names, BEST this, BEST that, is not important. What do you expect? That >>they say "K. Vs maybe the second best, K. Vs just a good one, K. againts some of >>the many programs in the top, K. fighting a a decent program..." ? >>Come on, man, this is business and without business we have nothing. Better >>something than nothing. >>Besides, DF and DJ are AT LEAST two of the maybe three tops programs. The third >>one could be Tiger or Ferret, who knows. But it is only one of the three. >>Fernando > > >You say "better something than nothing"... it's easy for you to say! What >about the chess programmers who have worked for years on their programs!!! > >It's totally unfair to expect these programmers just to accept being unfairly >dismissed from a match that people will generally regard as involving the best >computer program available, especially after the "Kasparov vs. Deep Blue" match >set the tone for "best human versus the best computer". I do not think they were dismissed just like that. The match was thought from the beginning for commercial AND multiprocessor engines and only three -the invited- qualified for that. > >It doesn't matter how good DF or DJ are. All that matters it *how* and *why* >they qualified for the match when others didn't. If it's because the organisers >wanted it that way, then they are entitled to do that, but they cannot mislead >people thereafter. Who has been misleaded? If rules are clear, results are clear. What can be said is: between two available multiprocessor engines, one won the other narrowly. Respect other people, not concerned with chess computer, this issue cannot care them less. What if Kramnik is defeated? Are the organisers going to >state that DF may not be the best program available? Are they going to >emphasise to the public that only SMP programs were considered? etc etc The >organisers may be entitled to organise as they wish, but it doesn't give them >the right to false claims, and this will happen. Let us see what happens and then what they say. > >I do however accept your point is that there is a strong business aspect to this >match. But what's good for business, isn't necessarily good in other aspects, >i.e. morally correct. > Morality has no room here. This is an industry and because it is so we have so many good programs. >In short, this match is being driven by money. That's fine for those making the >money. Unfortunately however these people don't put the interests of computer >chess first. > I think they have put enough interest, at least the neccesary to expend money to organize the match. We cannot expect that besides that they think in going further to please us, a tiny bunch of geeks. My best Fernando >Gordon
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.