Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:06:28 02/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2000 at 23:41:55, Mig wrote: >Thanks to everyone for their feedback, both here and by e-mail. I'm glad to see >I wasn't wrong in imagine this to be a rational and well-moderated group and I >received many good ideas. My only wish is that a select few would present their >solutions to the problem instead of calling me names! At the death it was either >forfeit Adams, who wasn't going to play that late and couldn't play the next >day, or forfeit Junior. > >This has provoked a lot of discussion about computer play in future events, and >whether or not the special characteristics of computer players, not just their >playing strength, should be considered in organizing events. Under perfect >conditions (Frankfurt last year) objections are minimal, but here we saw a how >flaws in a system -- our system in this case -- can be amplified. Mig, you are _grossly_ misunderstanding the problem. This has _nothing_ to do with "Deep Junior". It has _everything_ to do with gross incompetence and mis- management. What if the internet problem had happened when Kasparov was playing Adams? IE this wasn't DJ's fault, it was an internet problem. That is completely independent of whether one player was a computer or not. And your statement above only makes it more clear why this problem came up in the first place... > >Should computer players be limited to specific man-machine events, like the >upcoming match between Xie Jun and Deep Junior? Is play against computers >different enough to warrant "segregating" them and not mixing them into GM >tournaments with thousands of dollars on the line? I'm also asking the same >questions of top GMs, because at the end of the day if they won't play, the >question is moot. Are specific man-machine events in some way inferior or less >attractive for programmers or the public? > >Thanks, Mig See above. Replace "deep junior" by "Kasparov" and then think about how you would have handled the problem. Differently? No doubt. Differently? _WHY_?? That is getting overlooked here. Why was it different when one player was a computer? If the computer fails, or if the human gets sick, forfeit the missing player. If the 'medium' being used to play the game fails, how can you forfeit _either_ player? It was insane. It was insane to not have a plan in place for such an occurrence. It was insane to not have discussed this with folks that are 'internet aware'. We see this kind of network lag or outage all the time. That was the first thing we discussed when we were planning the ICC computer chess tournament. In the case of Kasparov chess, it was never discussed at all. How can that _possibly_ happen??? This entire thing is simply beyond belief.
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.