Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:51:33 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2000 at 17:52:05, vitor wrote: >On February 18, 2000 at 13:53:06, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 18, 2000 at 10:20:34, vitor wrote: >>[snip] >>>Inconveniencing a GM or unfairly forfeiting a computer? That is the question. If >>>you're smart, the choice should be easy. Here's the reality. You can get a >>>program to play anyone, anytime, anyplace, for free. You can't say that about >>>the GM, 2700 elo no less. >> >>Poppycock, balderdash, and fiddlesticks. All tournament entries should be shown >>the exact same courtesy. Don't forget that right behind the iron box are >>standing Amir and Shay who have dedicated their energies for years to make that >>chess program. Their effort is no different than the effort of a GM, and their >>ability is no different than the ability of a Super-GM. A super-GM is the best >>in the world at what they do, and so is the Deep Junior team. Deep Junior is >>clearly one of the top 5 programs in the world. This does not happen by >>accident, but by extreme, concentrated effort over a long period of time. Is >>their effort any less than the GM's? Not in my view. >> > > >There is a key difference. As much work as Amir has put into Junior before the >game, once the game starts, Adams is the only one doing the thinking. Adams' >opponent is merely a preset algorithm. In the frame of the chess match, Adams is >the only one giving concentrated effort. Completely true, but completely irrelevant. >>"Let's stick it to the machine." is another way of saying "Let's stick it to >>Amir and Shay." The machine is an unfeeling, detached piece of hardware. The >>software engineers who produced it are not. >> >>Just another example of extreme, churlish discourtesy that we have come to >>expect. I am quite horrified, but not surprised. >> >>[snip] > > >"Let's stick it to the machine." is another way of saying "We don't mess up a >lot of people's schedules." What about the schedule of Amir? Do you imagine that he did not wait around and anguish himself as much or more than the GM players. > Unfairly forfeiting Junior was not done out of >disrespect to the programmers but because of understanding of the players' >situations. Amir can choose to take it personally but he would be guilty of the >same insensitivity. There was no right answer, only the "less worse" of two >evils. The course chosen was the worst imaginable. > No one is implying that Junior lost the chess game or that the work of >Amir is an inferior chess player. > >Here's more reality: GM vs GM is interesting, GM vs C is interesting, C vs C is >not. You acknowledged (in your follow-up) that C v C can be interesting. For me, GM verses GM is not very interesting. C verses GM is incredibly interesting, and C verses C is mildly interesting. There are (of course) great exceptions to this. For instance, if Fischer were to come out of retirement and play Kasparov, that would probably be more interesting than any computer match going at the time. But if Deep Blue were to play Kasparov again, I am not sure I could pick which I would like to watch. And if an incredible new chess machine somehow coaxed Deep Blue out of retirement for a 20 game match, that would also be hard to choose from the others. >The common denominator is the GM. We can only set up as many GM/C games as >the GM is willing to play because the program is of infinite supply. So rather >than annoying a bunch of GMs and jeopardizing future possibilities of GM/C >tournaments, CK decided to forfeit one game. You seem to think that Amir does not matter and is somehow divorced from this whole proceeding. Either that, or he is simply less important than the GM's. Both views are wrong, in my opinion. Of course, it is very possible that I do not understand what you are saying.
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.