State of Computer Competitions Today

[Cliff Godsoe]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Cliff Godsoe at 13 March 2000 17:23:26:
I'm not sure what exactly is the problem, but the current state of computer vs. human competitions today is horrible. It seems the Xie Jun event is off to a start which could rival the Michael Adams fiasco of a few weeks ago. Someone has to start taking responsibility to better organize and prepare for these events, and this is obviously not the task of the GM's who are playing.
In my opinion, much more has to be done by the technical organizers. I know it is appealing to do everything on the cheap, but this is certainly not a viable way to ensure the long-term survivability of these competitions. As a systems engineer, if I don’t have any redundancy built into our network, and we lose all connectivity for a day, work doesn’t get adjourned – I get fired! I mean, multiple internet connections into the tournament hall could not be that hard.
Also, more standardized rules have to be put in place across the board addressing what happens if a computer crashes, or the computer screws up the clocks, or connectivity is lost, or power is lost, etc. TD's can not simply arbitrate these matters on the fly – especially when they are not onsite.
I’m not suggesting the programmers have to meet all these extra expenses themselves, nor make all the painful logistical decisions, but if organizers continue to treat these events with less than a professional demeanor then they will continued to be view by the spectators in the same light. And this I fear would be missing out on some golden opportunities for chess.
Cliff Godsoe - Canada

[Pete Galati]

Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Pete Galati at 13 March 2000 20:22:52:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: State of Computer Competitions Today geschrieben von: / posted by: Cliff Godsoe at 13 March 2000 17:23:26:

I'm not sure what exactly is the problem, but the current state of computer vs. human competitions today is horrible. It seems the Xie Jun event is off to a start which could rival the Michael Adams fiasco of a few weeks ago. Someone has to start taking responsibility to better organize and prepare for these events, and this is obviously not the task of the GM's who are playing.
In my opinion, much more has to be done by the technical organizers. I know it is appealing to do everything on the cheap, but this is certainly not a viable way to ensure the long-term survivability of these competitions. As a systems engineer, if I don’t have any redundancy built into our network, and we lose all connectivity for a day, work doesn’t get adjourned – I get fired! I mean, multiple internet connections into the tournament hall could not be that hard.
Also, more standardized rules have to be put in place across the board addressing what happens if a computer crashes, or the computer screws up the clocks, or connectivity is lost, or power is lost, etc. TD's can not simply arbitrate these matters on the fly – especially when they are not onsite.
I’m not suggesting the programmers have to meet all these extra expenses themselves, nor make all the painful logistical decisions, but if organizers continue to treat these events with less than a professional demeanor then they will continued to be view by the spectators in the same light. And this I fear would be missing out on some golden opportunities for chess.
Cliff Godsoe - Canada

Computer Chess itself is very young. As I recall there were no Chess programs untill the '50s, this means that Chess programs have come a very long way in a _very_ short amount of time, and they've also had a significant effect on how most people play the game of Chess over the board between other players.
I dissagree. Rules are not needed, niether are any kind governing organazations.
These matches that you are refering to happen because people want them to, not because some organazation burdened down with 10 zillion rules thought they should happen. There's a whole learning curve that needs to happen, and then over time these things will run more smoothly in the future when each match is set up a little better.
But keep in mind that programs will not allways remain as weak as Junior, not that Junior is the least bit weak, but at this point you can download programs for using with Winboard that are stronger than comercial programs from 10 years ago that cost allot of money, so my point being, that if anything would be endagering the "long-term survivability", it would be the eventual strength of the average program would be far beyond the abilities of the Grandmasters, and for them it will become like it is for _me_ trying to win a game against Comet, or Crafty, or Phalanx, or TCB (the list goes on...) I simply can not do it.
Pete