Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:12:59 05/19/02
On May 19th East-Timor becomes a new member of the UN. When this former part of Indonesia was fighting for its independance in 1996 the ICCA computer chess Wch took place in Jakarta. The Indonesian islamic govt. didn't allow the Israelian team of JUNIOR to visit Indonesia and gave no visa. Because of this and many other reasons the Championships were boycotted by the programmers Ed Schröder and Chris Whittington. Still the event took place and SHREDDER won its first title. For me as a newbie (1996) in the Internet these first weeks in usenet and the chess groups caused a cultural shock: Debates about Software Piracy, thus the name of a huge thread in RGCC, and death penalty- pro and con, boycott, military war against the own population in East Timor, the question of solidarity among the leading programmers, the dispute between programmers about high costs for professionals against free entry, free flight and free hotel (five stars) for "amateurs" against free all inclusive for the officials and staff of the ICCA. Reports about the "secret" email exchange between David Levy and Frederic Friedel. And many more topics. The main factor in all that: moral and ethical standards in computer chess. Different aspects: behavior between programmers and its organization, the ICCA, standards of play between comp vs comp, then between comp vs human chess player, standards of computer chess, that is to say the conditions of hardware and software for the chess playing entities, the rules of chess in computer chess, comparability of concepts in computer chess and human chess, in special what is strength, ELO etc. Wherever I looked and tried to understand basic rules of all that, the more I had the impression to be still in the early stages of a very immature private hobby game. As if it was still handled by some highly intelligent and motivated college students and professors on a weekend in the '60s. Far away there were the machines and here in the Cafeteria these guys who tried to experiment with the game chess had to find some smart ad hoc rules for the competition. American style of course. No juridical pedants in the room. No search for waterproof or such luxury. Just some basic rules for at best five participating teams. Not one thought on cheating. The main task in these times was to get some moves from the machines which could be called chess or at least chess-like. Mastering the complexity of the machines was the main job for all the people while the chessic outcome at times looked like a fascinating gamble. Would the machine see what they all had already seen although not at all experts or master players, with some exceptions like Levy of course? Robert Hyatt, as contemporary witness and participant recalled many unforgettable highlights of that period. But in 1996 times had changed dramatically. I had more questions than there were answers. The machines played real chess, as it looked like, but the rules still were on the level of the 'ad hoc'. As if in times where real money is at stake this could be sufficent. With hundreds and more participants all over the World the personal opinions of some respectable academics simply could no longer handle the problems fair and straight. For instance the most famous SSDF was basically started with the testing of a couple of Swedish chessplayers. They played against absolut dinosaurs of computer chess. And in 1996 the ranking differentiated between top programs 3 or 5 Elo points, as if that would be possible at all. Not to forget the "standard deviation" of some 38... But the list is still published on DIN-A4 pages in top CC mags, month after month. It is impossible to continue with such details, it is enough material for a whole book. There is a personal level of ethics. When I saw the unsolved problems, the contradictions, the technical mistakes and the lack of standards and tried to open discussions most of the attending experts reacted in the style of autocratic systems. They even doubted the justification of my questions. The same on the sector of moral. Every questioning is be seen as the attack on most valuable and honest members of the community. Basically it's a truth that you cannot change a system if you're all alone. And likewise you can't improve technical standards e.g. of statistics if the loudest reaction is an immediate "But we are not in science here, we're just doin' some hobby!" But then, the consequences are, that the presentation of computerchess in the media must be lowered from science to hobby and fun. Of course this is not what is happening. And that in my opinion is the inborn mistake of CC. The pretentiousness of something what trivially isn't existing at all. Now, if I speak and spoke it out, it wasn't fun or some masochistic game. I do believe that the standards could be changed to the better im computerchess. Just like in East-Timor, where the bishop who defended his people against military terror got the Nobel Prize for Peace at the end of 1996. Today, on May 19th of 2002, East-Timor is an independant state in the UN. How many years it will take for the people in computerchess to stand their system on two safe feet? Democracy and science. Best regards to you all Rolf Tueschen P.S. I have the following proposition, that those who want to discuss the political topics, death penalty and stuff like that, will be invited to please write in the neighbour Chess Thinkers Forum, while for questions of a change in CC the neighbour CCC should be the right place. Therefore the exceptional one time cross posting. I hope for your understanding. Thank you.
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.