Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:41:25 08/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2001 at 17:20:31, Amir Ban wrote: >On August 24, 2001 at 16:50:28, Charles Young wrote: > >>Congratulation Amir, >> >>I am surmizing you are taking questions the same as the author of Shredder did >>after his championship. >> >>1) What did you think about the multi category championship ? >> > >I said it very plainly in the players meeting before the tournament start: the >multi category makes no sense, and I don't consider myself competing in it. I >used a dual not to be in the category, but to give me a better chance to win the >tournament. > >There was discussing of which playoff to hold in case of ties, and the following >possibility came up: > >The tournament ends with three programs tied, ranked by tie-breaking point; (1) >multi (2) single (3) multi. What playoff to hold ? It was decided (1) will be >declared tournament winner, (2) will win the single title, and (1) & (3) will >playoff for the multi title, with the ridiculous possibility that (3) will win >and (1) will remain as "only" the tournament winner. > >I said if this came up, and I was (1), I would have no interest in winning the >playoff game, and may just forfeit it. > >Regarding the single event, it's questionable too, because several of their >strongest single opponents were missing, having chosen to play dual. > > >>2) Do you feel your title has been tarnished to any degree that Shredder is the >>single cpu title holder ? >> > >No. It would have been if (single) Junior7 had played in this tournament, but it >didn't. > > >>3) How would you like to see the title organized ? >> > >In such an event the only titles that makes sense are overall champion and the >amateur title. The multi and single titles are ICCA nonsense. The single title >should be awarded in a single-only event. The multi title makes no sense at all, >because any multi can be a single if he chooses to. I think that there is a logical purpose to single/multiple CPU distinction. Most consumers do not have multiple CPU machines. Therefore, knowing how well a program performs on a single processor is much more important to them than how it will perform if many CPU's are available. On the other hand, I think that if we do have this distinction, then the same programs should be allowed to enter ALSO the single CPU event on a separate machine. After all, they are _not competing_ at the single CPU event otherwise. There are other possible solutions -- uniform platform is one possibility (of course if someone has a MacIntosh program, then what do we do?) The most important step needed (as I see it) is to clearly spell out rules well in advance (by several months at the very least). In this way, any objections can be addressed in advance, instead of making emergency decisions right at the time of the tournament. ========================================================================= My round congratulations to all the winners for a great number of reasons: 1. All the winners were worthy opponents who performed admirably against formidable competition. 2. All the winners have remained on high ground by not criticizing their opponents or making huge negative reactions. ========================================================================= If there are a big pile of champions instead of just one, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. That way, every one of the winners gets to put glowing ad copy on their software box. Also, at cocktail parties, they can say: "Did you know I was the world computer chess champion?[1]" [1] For programs written in VAX BASIC and running on a simulator in a PDA... [snip]
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.