Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:55:14 10/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Amir Ban on October 12, 1999 at 18:51:25: >>Rebel Company about the accusations: >> >> >>We were not aware of any restriction that playing against Deep Blue Junior >>was forbidden. Deep Blue Junior was there and we took the opportunity to find out >>more about this program. The result was posted as NEWS no more no less and we >>don't have (nor had) any intention to include Rebel's victory over Deep Blue >>Junior in our advertisements. >> >> >>We can't confirm the "one second" time control of Deep Blue Junior. Deep Blue >>Junior indeed played on a "one second" time control using its default time >>control but raising the time control caused Deep Blue Junior to think a lot >>longer (up to 10-15 seconds). >> > >This point is important, and I didn't see it discussed. If so, Hsu is >misinformed about what features were made available to users of DBjr, and >Rebel played a version that was much stronger than he thought. I don't remember if >they played equal time controls, but if they did, it may well be that the >contest was fair or close to fair (we need to assume that the DBjr server was >not overloaded, which to me seems likely, because it was hardly used >intensively at the stations I saw in Paderborn). DB-JR played on 5/all Rebel on 10/all. In the end both programs used the same amount of time for the games. I clearly remember a situation that DB-JR went into panic-time and used at least 30 seconds for its move. The DB-JR time control behavior was as normal as you can expect from a computer chess program playing a 5/all blitz game. >I wouldn't consider Rebel beating DBjr a surprise. Even assuming full-DB to be >the equal of Kasparov (doubtful), DBjr should be much weaker, and not more >than Rebel. Besides, isn't Rebel's record against rated players better than >DBjr's ? >I don't know the statistics, but I got the impression that DBjr's record is >not too good. > >I think it's pretty low to say or imply that Ed played DBjr for cheap >publicity. Obviously he did that out of curiosity. Right, I would have posted too if the result had been opposite. Next, it is no shame to lose from a 20,000,000 NPS machine. The screen + documentation clearly gave that impression. >It would make better business sense to >concentrate on the WCCC rather than play improvised games in the hall, but >people who are curious do what is intersting, not important. It's clear >from Hsu & Campbell's letter and the clarification from Friedel that they are not >curious in the least, and that they don't give a damn about their peers respect. >That's a good enough reason not to respect them, and I don't. > >Amir According to Bob (I just wrote email to him about this) the Hsu/Campbell statement was done in private email and most probably was not meant for publication. Now think of this... in email we feel protected because of the private status. In email we often say things (or make jokes) to our friends we wouldn't dare to say in public. In email we act differently than in public. I think that's perfectly normal. Meaning to say that Hsu & Campbell most likely would have reacted in a different way if they would have known their email was meant for publication. When I read the Hsu/Campbell statement for the first time I immediately tasted that sayings like: "Either ICCA has violated our conditions of usage, or Ed Schröder has misused this opportunity at will, to make false advertisement for his program". are not common (normal) as being a proper way to react in public. Ed
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.