Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:36:30 02/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 08:54:18, Terry Presgrove wrote: >On February 29, 2000 at 05:46:29, Martin wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 22:06:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 28, 2000 at 21:55:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:30:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 28, 2000 at 20:25:29, Derrick Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the this week in chess site, a letter is displayed by michael Adams >>>>>>explaining the circumstances surounding the Deep blue Scandal, It appears that >>>>>>Michael Adams is attempting to shift the blame away from himself, on to the >>>>>>victims, which was Clearly Amir Ban and his partner Shay. I believe this only >>>>>>adds insult to injury, Mr. Adams ought to be ashamed of himself. >>>>> >>>>>Here is the "open letter": >>>>>http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/adams.html >>>> >>>>It sounds to me like Adams was simply "caught in the middle of a bad >>>>situation." It doesn't sound (to me) as though he had any real sort of >>>>agenda to cause a problem... I think that the organizers simply had way too >>>>much incompetence to let the event run smoothly... This kind of nonsense was >>>>inevitable... >>> >>>I think you are right, but I think that Mr. Adams now blames Amir and Shay. A >>>typical example of "blaming the victom" if I ever saw one. I don't think Adams >>>is at fault either. But I do fault his derision of Amir, who was (I think) >>>stuck in the middle far worse than anyone else -- especially considering the >>>outcome. >> >>Well, it was Amir and Shay who blamed Mickey shortly after the event. And this >>is certainly not fair either. >> >>Martin > > Perhaps you are rigtht that Adam's received to much early criticism. But the > fact remains he could have played the second game. Mig gave him the opportunity > to bail out and that is exactly what he did. Had it been another GM the offer > would not have been on the table. > It would not surprise me if we do not hear much more on this issue from the DJ > team. There has to be a tremendous amount of pressure on them to let this die. > Except for Dr. Hyatt's strong criticism in the non-commercial arena and one > post by Ed Shroeder of Rebel chidding Mig for making a bad decision I am not > aware of any commercial programmer coming to the DJ team's defense (please > correct me it I'm wrong). It may very well be that in the long scheme of thngs > this is the best course for those envolved in the developement of Chess > software. But I suggest that if it had happened to any one of the others (that > have not spoken) they would have reacted somewhat differently than we have > seen. I understand that the GM's hold all the cards on this issue and the > programmers are to a large degree at their mercy, but there is no gray area in > the fact that KC (Mig) screwed the DJ team and this whole episode has left a > very bad taste in allot of people's mouths. I suspect that this issue will > quickly fade as we draw closer to the next matches and hopefully the end of a > very bad episode in computer chess. > > TP The only danger is criticizing the wrong entity. IE when two people are at odds in the way they think things happened, there are two logical explanations: (1) one of them is mistaken, or intentionally distorting facts. (2) there is someone _between_ them that is producing the confusion. In this case, evidence suggests that it was the 'middleware' that failed, for a host of reasons, from lack of forsight, to poor communication, to flawed reasoning. As a result, the Junior team and Adams are caught on the outside looking in. It would be easy to be wrong here. But I think the problem was not on either end, but directly in the middle. And I am not talking about the 'network' either. :)
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.