GM Alexander Shabalov comments on Rybka 4 and Houdini.

[tomgdrums]

GM Alexander Shabalov comments on Rybka 4 and Houdini on Chessbase Site. Comments start at 12mins. and 20 sec. on video.


http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7168

The question reads like a plant. Instead of simply asking what engines he uses to prepare, after which he might simply give his opinion relative to Rybka, she asks whether there is anything stronger than Rybka.

I agree. The whole thing seemed staged, even to the point of Sam saying he still uses Rybka and the GM Ashley saying "maybe that is why you lost.."

Pathetic. An example of what not to say as a journalist. Shankland said nothing (he must be a gentleman).

It was kind of funny when Shabalov said at the end that one of the important things was to "remember all this stuff".

Miguel

I agree! Shankland showed class by not responding.

[Milos]

I think in light of recent revelations about Houdini, no company is going to be willing to sell it and take the risk of a major copyright infringement law suit. It is a direct derivative of Robo* and friends.

Lol who would sue Vasik???
Don't be childish, Robbo/Ippo etc. are Public Domain, meaning you can do with them whatever you like.

[Sean Evans]

I think in light of recent revelations about Houdini, no company is going to be willing to sell it and take the risk of a major copyright infringement law suit. It is a direct derivative of Robo* and friends.

Lol who would sue Vasik???
Don't be childish, Robbo/Ippo etc. are Public Domain, meaning you can do with them whatever you like.

Yup! Nobody is going to reverse-engineer Houdini anyway!

[yanquis1972]

some of the responses here make me laugh. are some of you so wrapped up in the computer chess world that you honestly believe an author would bribe someone to ask a question or answer it a certain way?? do you really think this is 'pathetic' journalism (granted i only watched the discussed about segment)? it's just meant to be a little snippet that anyone watching (ie ppl with computers) can take something away from...it's not about pushing product...like it or not these people don't care about engine authors feelings or sales -- they're barely on the map. they just want what gives them the best result. shabalov was forthright, shankland wasn't so much (i did like that he immediately corrected shabalov, who i must think is dead wrong).

[Mike S.]

Absolutely.

Also, they aren't simply journalists, they are GM Ashley and WGM Shahade (a former US woman's champion) who do the knowledgeable chess commentary and interviews, live. It is free on the web as a video stream. I'm watching this since a couple of rounds, combined with the ChessBomb web transmission including live Stockfish analyses provided by the server. Combined, it is simply the best chess tournament coverage I've EVER seen or heard in the media. Just brilliant!

http://www.livestream.com/uschess

http://livechess.chessdom.com/site/

http://saintlouischessclub.org/2011-us- ... nformation
http://saintlouischessclub.org/2011-us- ... nformation

[michiguel]

some of the responses here make me laugh. are some of you so wrapped up in the computer chess world that you honestly believe an author would bribe someone to ask a question or answer it a certain way?? do you really think this is 'pathetic' journalism (granted i only watched the discussed about segment)?

Yes, you do not make fun of the guy you are interviewing. Particularly if he/she lost. Competitors are not particularly happy to be interviewed after a loss. Do not make the situation more tense...
What did Ashley expect it as a reply? nothing. Of course, Ashkland remained quiet. OTOH, Ashley missed a good opportunity as journalist to get an opinion from him. He could have said "Wow, we have different perspectives here! what is you experience?". But after "But that's maybe why you lost!" he cut the communication and all possible follow ups (that is something a journalist should NEVER do). A journalist should never be the center of attention, and when they crack a joke, they end up doing that.

"Just a joke" does not cut it, you are not a comedian, you are journalist.

Miguel
PS: I can imagine Bobby Knight replying to that "joke"

it's just meant to be a little snippet that anyone watching (ie ppl with computers) can take something away from...it's not about pushing product...like it or not these people don't care about engine authors feelings or sales -- they're barely on the map. they just want what gives them the best result. shabalov was forthright, shankland wasn't so much (i did like that he immediately corrected shabalov, who i must think is dead wrong).

[yanquis1972]

eh. is bobby knight the role model you want to aspire to? if a reporter said, 'maybe the opposinig teams fans intensity was the reason you lost' he would've been ripped a new one, sure. it's not a particularly offensive question, even if you could call it ignorant (& in this case it doesn't even have the 'joke' aspect involved). shankland took a more affable approach to what was, in truth, an affable comment.

my response would be to laugh, maybe slightly nervously, but never would i suspect something malicious was going on behind the scenes....this is just silly to me. dissecting a 30 second segment like this because it's pertinent to your/our field. it means nothing, except to support the idea that houdini is stronger than rybka overall, which, afaik, is true.

[michiguel]

eh. is bobby knight the role model you want to aspire to?

No, that was a joke, with a smiley following.

if a reporter said, 'maybe the opposinig teams fans intensity was the reason you lost' he would've been ripped a new one, sure. it's not a particularly offensive question, even if you could call it ignorant (& in this case it doesn't even have the 'joke' aspect involved). shankland took a more affable approach to what was, in truth, an affable comment.

You are not getting my point.

It is irrelevant if it is offensive or not or what were the intentions. The job of a journalist is inform, conducting the interview in a way that the audience gets the most out of the interviewee. So, a journalist should create the right atmosphere for it. Cracking an obvious silly joke is not the way to do it and shows a very poor journalistic performance.

my response would be to laugh, maybe slightly nervously, but never would i suspect something malicious was going on behind the scenes....

As a spectator I do not care about the laugh, but I care about info. For instance, why does he use Rybka? Ashely did not ask that, and preferred to be a comedian. Is that good journalism?

Miguel

this is just silly to me. dissecting a 30 second segment like this because it's pertinent to your/our field. it means nothing, except to support the idea that houdini is stronger than rybka overall, which, afaik, is true.

[yanquis1972]

a)i realize it was a joke, & a good one, but a lot of people probably wouldn't mind seeing their favorite player adapt a bobby knight(/fischer?) attitude.

b)it's not irrelevant because they're not journalists. they are chess players, coming there to comment on the games & ultimately interview its players. this was a tiny, tiny fragment of their coverage. there real job is to provide incisive commentary during games then let the players give their piece after.

sure ashley cut shankland off. but what would the followup have been. everyone knows why everyone uses/used rybka. it was the big boy on the block. what they were getting at, in what i suppose you consider an abrupt & crude manner, is that it is no longer. and this is just simply true.

i don't think there was an agenda beyond (possibly) wanting to inform the audience, as you say.

[Dirt]

...it's not irrelevant because they're not journalists. they are chess players, coming there to comment on the games & ultimately interview its players.

Yeah, their failures as journalists is part of the fun.