Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:48:12 02/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 29, 2000 at 17:44:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 29, 2000 at 12:47:06, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 22:36:47, Terry Presgrove 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. >>> >>> >>> I agree. While Adam's may not be at fault for the forfeit he certainly is >>> is not a victim. That solely belongs to the DJ team and computer chess fans >>> everywhere. Mig's failure to notify Amir/Shay of an impending forfiet was >>> inexcusable. I am not even sure the time sequence of the events lines up with >>> Amir's account. >> >>It doesn't. One thing I managed to understand from Adams' account is that >>Bermuda is not at EST but one hour later at GMT-4. This means my timeline and >>Mark Crowther's is wrong at several places. So in fact Mig did not offer the >>default about 1645 EST, when we were about to start the 2nd game, but at 1600 >>EST, i.e. less than 30 minutes after the first game stopped. I now understand >>that the 20 minutes delay to start the 2nd game after the draw was concluded at >>1640 PM was in fact a timeout by Jarecki and Adams to consider, and when it was >>up they decided to insist on the forfeit. To my best knowledge, we and Aviv >>knew about the forfeit claim at that point only, though by Adams account Aviv >>should have known it an hour earlier. Possibly Aviv did not understand what this >>meant the first time he heard it. >> >>I think it's important to set the record straight, as I and others tried to >>reconstruct in detail what happened. Nobody has been lying here, of course, and >>in fact there is reasonable agreement between all accounts, and it seems >>everybody was trying to be accurate though it was not easy in this case. >> >>I don't know what this changes in the judgement of these facts. I understand now >>that the default was offered and taken up nearly an hour earlier than I thought, >>and since the only reason given for it was the "it's getting late" argument, it >>only makes it more difficult to understand. This was at a time when Adams could >>expect in the normal course of events to be starting the second game, with >>perhaps blitz to follow, so why would anyone think this was too late to play ? >> >>I and Shay made it clear that we don't consider Adams to be the main party at >>fault here. He only took what someone offered, but having taken it, he goes too >>far in insisting that this was coming to him by right. >> >>The telling paragraph in his account is "Having thought about the situation I >>felt that there should be clarification as to why Deep Junior had not been >>forfeited as was stated and asked for an explanation prior to the second game. >>Aviv then had a lengthy conversation with Carol Jarecki who fully supported my >>position." He does not say why he and Jarecki thought his opponent should be >>forfeited, except that this was promised by Mig. >> >>Amir >> >> >> > > >I think you just have to grow up, and move on. The better you get, the more >common this sort of 'anti-computer' nonsense becomes. It happened to me. > >In 1981 we were invited to a state chess championship, an event we had played in >every year for several years in a row. We never did particularly well, and were >not a threat. But in 1981 we were running for the first time on a Cray. And >we went undefeated and became the first computer to ever win a major tournament, >in the open section (not in a class section). The first thing that happened, >even though we reminded everyone that we could not (according to USCF rules) >take any prizes or money by winning, was that it was pointed out that our >computer was not a "mississippi resident" and that we should be thrown out >(after the fact) and all our opponents given wins for the games (Cray Blitz >didn't lose a game, nor did it draw one). > >It was nonsensical, and I became convinced that playing in human events was >something that was going to become more and more infrequent for us. Your >strength was against you. The fact that you were running a computer, a >perception that _totally_ overlooks the fact that your team are 'humans', was >against you (favor human over machine every time when possible). > >The deck was stacked. It won't always happen like that... but if you want to >play against humans with a strong program/machine, you had best be prepared. It >happened to me more than once. The danger is always present, because human egos >are very fragile things at times... > >I personally would have loved to see you play Kasparov, and beat him if >possible. :) I really wanted to see who he would rant and rave at if that >happened. :) I agree with all this. I have my own tournament experience that tells me such events should not come as a big surprise. On the other hand, and in spite of all odds, computer chess is gaining in recognition and acceptance. Amir
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.