I know you and I know you don't have anything better to do this weekend than read an eight-page article that gives the blow-by-blow behind the scenes action of a computer match that isn't going to happen. Coincidentally, just the other day IM David Levy sent me just such a document! It details the negotiations behind a planned match between the programs Rybka, by Vasik Rajlich and Junior by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky. (Full b-ball disclosure: I know exactly how many free throws out of 10 Shay can hit and I once went to a WNBA game with his sister.) It was intended to take place alongside the Mexico City world championship in September. Pics of all the programmers here.
You'll remember Rybka offered a challenge to FIDE and the winner of their "Ultimate" computer match last June. This match wasn't really that one. No handicap or winner-take-all. The gist of this epic, which is just begging to be set to music, I might add, is that everyone on all sides supported a match. FIDE and the Mexico organizers were on board. It would be between the 2006 (Junior) and 2007 (Rybka) world computer champions. Rybka dominates the computer vs computer rating lists and Junior just beat Fritz in a match in Elista. The company that distributes Rybka, Convekta, was offering to guarantee a $100,000 prize fund. Convekta's Sergey Abramov represented Rajlich in the negotiations. The major issues in the negotiations were 1) Time frame, 2) Tiebreaks, 3) Financial guarantees, 4) Hardware. The first three were settled rather quickly, the first two conceded by the Junior team, but the fourth became complex. The main issue was whether or not the computers the programs ran on would have to be on-site or if remote was acceptable.
To summarize Abramov's position, such a high-stakes match cannot allow any possibility of cheating. As such, the machines must be on site and available for inspection. The Junior team responded that there is a long tradition of using remote terminals and that this was the only way they could be sure to be playing on the strongest hardware possible. The expense of bringing/arranging a top-level machine in Mexico would be prohibitive. Eventually Abramov accepted that position but wanted a set of controls to be put in place to assure the probity of the contest. This included providing the log files and copies of the program to the arbiter after each game, something that at least at some level has been done many times in the past. Abramov then asked that the log files and engines also be provided to the opposing team after the match was completed, something that Levy describes as out of bounds.
That turned out to be the sticking point. It was either on-site hardware or handing over executables and logs. Eventually they overstepped the July 30 deadline set by Abramov without a resolution. You can read the full Levy article in all its original formatting glory here in PDF format.
I'm not really torn up about this. More chess is always good, but as I said about the Junior-Fritz match, this isn't high-stakes chess. Both engines are commercially available, if not in their absolutely latest versions perhaps. It's a fun academic exercise to play an annual championship between the comps, but it's not really much of a spectator sport. You might make the argument that with computers being as strong as they are this is the best chess ever played on the planet. But making that argument would make you a silly person. Compare it a potter making a vase. A machine can crank out countless perfect replicas that have fewer flaws and that possess perfect symmetry. But is it art?
The slight imperfections are what make human chess a sport. Computers make mistakes of course, even big ones, but it's more of a science in finding out how and why the algorithm coughed up a hairball. That's not sport, that's debugging. As a programmer I'm all for the argument that great coding has artistic merits and this is even more the case with chess programming. I've oohed and aahed over elegant code the way we coo over a brilliant mate. That's art. Still, when it comes to chess matches, the principles of competitive tension, winning when it counts, and results being what matter are alien to machines. I watch, I'm interested in the games, but it's hard to care. Yes, the programmers get worked up plenty, but this isn't the same. Watching NASCAR is bad, although millions apparently do so. Imagine watching NASCAR with the cars being remote-controlled. Or driven by robots as the robot designers cheer from the sidelines. Not so much.
As an aside, unless the machines are of roughly similar processing power there is even less of a point in holding competitive events. I'm aware of all the reasons this can be difficult, but since most progs are running on standard PC architecture these days it's not hard. (I.e. a program that can only run on a Cray would require some serious equivalence calculations. And a hardware-based program like Hydra is another thing altogether.) It also makes marketing sense to want them on the fastest machines available. Faster machine, better chess. But if one is on 16 cores and the other 8, it's a bit silly to talk about the programs and sport. It's like having a Ferrari vs a Hyundai to find the best driver.