Man vs. Machine Challenge:

The True History of the Kramnik vs. Fritz Match

by International Arbiter
Eric Schiller

October 2002

Man vs. Machine Challenge: The True History of the Kramnik vs. Fritz Match

by Eric Schiller (author@chessworks.com)

As Vladimir Kramnik does battle with Fritz in the battle of Bahrain, scheduled for an October 2002 start, many will no doubt be interested in how this match came about, and how the participants were chosen. The Human representative, Kramnik, was automatically invited by virtue of his holding the traditional World Champion title, which he earned by defeating Kasparov in their 2000 match, where I participated as arbiter.

As soon as the BGN World Championship match between Kasparov and Kramnik had concluded, Ray Keene asked me to begin working on the Man vs. Machine Million Dollar Challenge (as it was then called, at my suggestion). It wasn't until the end of March, however, that the organization of the qualification and final match got down to details. The qualifying event turned out to be quite a controversial affair. I felt to withdraw as arbiter for reasons which will be presented in Part One of this document. That did not affect my status as arbiter of the final, and I developed a full set of rules for the match, in cooperation with both Team Fritz and Team Kramnik. That will be covered in Part Two. However, events of September 11, 2001 forced a postponement of the match. During the interval, BGN sold the rights for the match to the Einstein TV group, who hired Malcolm Pein to take on the role previously occupied by Ray Keene. I was again invited as arbiter, but my participation was vetoed by Team Fritz, as will be discussed in Part Three.

Part One deals with the controversial qualifying tournament held in Cadaques, Spain,. to choose a challenger for Kramnik. Because many questions have been raised about this event, I am going to refrain from presenting any prejudicial commentary, though I may do so at some time in the future. Instead, I place in the public record a large set of internal emails. I should point out that I never received any compensation for my work, and am under no obligation to keep this material from the public. It is certainly in the public interest to make this material available, and however one might judge the actions of each individual, I think that all the correspondents behaved very well. Indeed, even after I withdrew from the qualifier I remained an integral part of the team working on the big final match, so obviously we felt confident that we could all work together. It is not my intention to disparage any individuals involved. Each has made very significant contributions to chess and our disagreements over matters of policy and philosophy should not be taken as personal animosity.

Part Two contains email documentation and all the drafts and final agreed form of the rules for the planned Bahrain match in 2001. These are NOT the rules under which the match is being played. My rules were replaced when I was. However, it is a fascinating set of exchanges and contains discussions of many tricky questions. Anyone interested in human vs. computer mind sports will learn a lot!

Part Three is simply a matter of putting the facts of my non-participation (including lack of compensation for any of the 20012002 work!) on the record. This may not be of particular interest to most folks, but I want to complete the tale.

Because this document is intended as a record, I have made it available in secured PDF format. Although I retain copyright to the overall document, you may use as much of the text as you deem appropriate in discussions of the event. If scholarship or reporting requirements demand an exact copy of some original email with all headers and so on, please contact me by email at author@chessworks.com and I'll see what I can do.

Part One: How the qualifying event for the challenge was arranged

I have presented all of the emails I deem to be relevant, and have omitted emails which contain only discussion of travel arrangements, legal issues involving a previous Braingames CEO, and other unrelated matters. I have not edited any of the emails except to run them through a spell-checker, and I have not modified Ray Keene's typical single case letters, except to correct names. I have deleted quoted messages identical to the ones presented. I also deleted personal information such as mailing addresses and telephone numbers. I believe this presentation will allow readers to come to their own conclusions and perhaps avoid swallowing any of the rumors currently circulating on the Internet.

The emails were sent from different parts of the world, and therefore the timestamps aren't a good clue to the order in which they were written, but that was all I had to work with. So some may be out of order. However, I have placed the emails into sections by date, so if you read a full day's worth everything should be clear.

In this part, documents from March and April 2001 are presented, with a short followup from May.

Cast of Characters:

Bertil Eklund: Swedish computer chess specialist

Byron Jacobs: Keene's assistant, handling technical decisions on the events.

Enrique Irazoqui: Organizer and arbiter of Fritz vs. Junior qualifier. Replaced Schiller as arbiter for Bahrain.

Eric Schiller: Arbiter of Kasparov vs. Kramnik, appointed by Keene with agreement of Chessbase and Kramnik to be arbiter of match in Bahrain. Also appointed to be arbiter of Fritz vs. Junior.

Frederic Friedel: ChessBase, distributor of Fritz and Junior but not programs which were refused participation in qualifier.

Ossie Wiener: Represented Shredder in negotiations to include that program in qualifier

Raymond Keene: Braingames.net Games Director

Vincent Diepeveen: Programmer of Diep, a program which was not allowed to compete

22 March 2001

Sent by Raymond Keene

thanks to Enrique for a prompt response!! We must clearly add a prohibition against the computer winner competing in another man v machine match before Bahrain starts-Byron pls note to put this in the revised contract! Further points- 1 I would like to invite Enrique to be one of the two arbiters in Bahrain for the main match- Schiller will be the other-there will be a modest fee plus covering of all your expenses and a stay in a fabulous hotel with multiple swimming pools restaurants and amazing beaches 2 I want to visit Cadaqués one weekend during the qualifier-what is the recommended hotel (i.e. best-most picturesque most beautiful) and which is the best way to get there from London? I seem to recall the Salvador Dali museum is there-is it open to the public ? 3 the reason for stopping end April is that Kramnik wants to see fifty games against grandmasters by the winning program well before Bahrain starts- which I think is fair-I wanted to give enough time for this to happen-of course we can slip into may by a few days maybe even one week but time is a bit short 4 however-I think it important we don't start the qualifier until April 16-we must get the main contract and press release issued first-this is

scheduled for April 15.the notice on the BGN website states nothing more than our policy to hold such a match-I don't regard that as a leak! 5 also I wd like to invite Eric Schiller-one of our arbiters from wcc London 2000-also officiating in Bahrain- over to be in Cadaqués and he cannot make it before April 16-I want him to be involved in writing the final set of rules with Enrique! 6 what is this tournament Shredder just won ipccc Paderborn or something-pls inform me!! 7 is there any problem calling our event in Cadaqués the BGN world computer championship? I hope not!! To summarize-lets start on April 16-it's the day after the big press con and I think it will make a big splash-if the event goes over the end of April I don't mind so long as we still have time to provide Kramnik with his specimen games. A speedy response would be appreciated thanks ray

Sent by Raymond Keene

we want the event to be officially known as the brain games world computer championship! I trust there is no problem with this. Byron Jacobs will officially represent brain games in all questions. it is imperative all entrants sign the brain games contract before the start of the event. I will forward this to you soon and I wd hope that Enrique will be able to get everyone to sign- we have agreed with Freddie Friedel that there will be an entry fee of $us 2500 per computer to go towards the organizational costs-finally I understand that Shredder-deep blue deep Junior and Fritz are the four invitees. there should be no press announcements until I have signed the agreements with both Kramnik and Bahrain both of which I anticipate early next week. so long as the event finishes by end April we have no time trouble!! best wishes ray Keene brain games games director

Sent by Raymond Keene

I just emailed you a bunch of forwarded messages from me and Enrique the local organizer-looks like we can start April 16 which is good for you-make sure you pick up the forwarded messages don't screen them out as potential cyber threats!! you will need to write the rule book for Bahrain while you are in Spain! you will get all the contracts to help with background! can you stay in touch with Byron and Enrique to find out where to stay and how to get there! Ray

Sent by Raymond Keene

I have no particular problem with any of this- while some of it I regard as extremely positive news e.g. the hotel situation! BGN is planning to install the Staunton trophy in Simpson's on April 11, and faute de mieux we also could have made that the press announcement day for man v machine. if April 15 is generally acceptable in Bahrain I think that wd be better! we can start the computer qualifier in Spain on April 16 which then becomes ideal timing. many thanks to Justin for a lucid exposition-I hope to sign the Kramnik contract over the weekend!! Ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

I went through them all. Timetable is very tight. What time does the first round start? I need time to get from Barcelona, which is probably the closest airport. I'll check flight schedules. I'll do that ASAP. Doing the rulebook for Bahrain in Spain is no problem. I presume rules for this qualifier are the same used as Cadaqués tournament, but I need to see a copy. I'll be in touch with Byron and Enrique re arrangements. You specify four programs, but if the winner of the current computer event isn't among them, that might be strange. I haven't checked results recently, will do so soon. Preparing a website for covering the games should be a high priority. That's what the spectators will be watching. Eric

23 March 2001

Sent by Raymond Keene

we are working on all of the above-can you tell me flight costs-does not matter if you are not there at the start-important thing is that you and Enrique who I have invited both to be the two arbiters for the Bahrain event should emerge at the end of Cadaqués with a perfect rule book for Bahrain we can discuss details later after you've seen the contracts-as I said liaise with Byron and Enrique re logistics and well speak soon once the actual contract with Vlad is signed which I hope is imminent! Ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

Glad to see you don't need me at the start, flights are difficult (and VERY expensive, lowest quote I got so far from Dallas is over $3000!). I worked on them for an hour last night, nothing satisfactory. If I don't have to be there on the 16th, it is a bit easier, I can leave 15th from Dallas (Maybe, all flights early, I must be in Dallas until end of final round)). I'll try to sort something out today and give you details. What will I be doing other than the rule book, will I be working as arbiter too? More later. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

I am trying to make travel arrangements, but they aren't easy. I must be in Dallas through Sunday (April 15th) afternoon until the last round of the Dallas invitational ends. I do not know when that is, but the latest I can leave Dallas and get to Barcelona next day seems to be about 4:00 PM. I don't think that will work, especially since I don't know where I will be in Dallas and how far it is from the airport. All arrangements for the Dallas trip are being made by Stanford University (I will be coaching the team). They were planning on flying me back to SF with the team on Sunday night. From his latest message, it seems I don't need to be there on the 16th. Can you confirm this? Looks like I may have to overnight in Dallas and fly on the 16th, which would get me in on the 17th. I also have no idea how to get to Cadaques. The guides I read that it is a few hours. Will a car be sent to Barcelona? The ending date of the event is not clear to me. Should I be looking for an open ticket or do you have some final date? When I get the details, should I send them to you for ticketing? Please send me as much information as you can ASAP. In addition to the travel arrangements I must also alter my teaching schedule and find substitutes for the schools. Is the format of the event set? The participants? I'm still pretty much in the dark here. Finally, is there anything you want me to do re website technology before I arrive in Spain?

Sent by Raymond Keene

Byron will answer your questions-he will put you directly in touch with Enrique who is the local organizer- Byron-pls put Enrique directly in touch with Eric-thanks- ray

25 March 2001

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Hi Eric,

Greetings! Ray Keene suggested I get in touch with you regarding the upcoming computer qualifier in Cadaques. I have no information at all, so far, so could you send me all details that are complete? Dates are not clear yet, but so far it seems it will take place between April 16th and May 7th. Three programs will participate and play 20 game matches all against all at 40 moves in 90 minutes on 2 dual Pentium-933 machines. I must arrange flights, which is turning out to be a bit tricky as I am in Dallas on the 15th and must stay at least until 3 PM. I can arrive on the 16th sometime in the afternoon (Barcelona). What is the best way to get to Cadaques? I assume that Barcelona is the nearest airport, but let me know if there is something closer.

Barcelona is the closest international airport. Once in there you have 2 options: take a train to Figueres and I'll pick you up or else take a taxi, as I usually do. The taxi will cost about $150.

When does the event end? I must advise clients and students here and reschedule.

Ray indicated end-of-April/early May, but no specifics. As I said, we are not sure yet, but in any case the tournament should be finished before May 7th.

What is the level of formality of the event (should I bring suits or something less formal?)

Zero formality, please! :) I have never seen a necktie or a suit in Cadaqués. I always go around with blue jeans.

I understand that my major task is to complete all the rules and regulations for the Kramnik match, but assume that I'll be working in several capacities (as usual with Ray), including arbiting, press and internet coverage. However, I await Ray's (and your) guidance.

We'll talk about all this here. I understand that you and I will be the arbiters, but I don't know anything specific about it.

Is the local language primarily Spanish or Catalan?

Either, we are all bilingual. By the way, I never spoke so much English as in Cadaqués, not even during my 14 years in the States. You won't have a problem.

I always try to learn a bit before I travel. My Spanish is not very strong (English, Russian, German, Cambodian and a few others are my main languages) but I can understand a bit.

Don't worry, really. I speak Spanish, Catalan, French and Italian, and I mumble some English too. We could open a translation agency. :)

Is there broadband access in Cadaques?

Nope. If you are lucky, you will be able to connect at 56k, more often at 45k. It's driving me nuts.

I will need to access some updates on development projects that usually come in the form of 25 Meg downloads.

Impossible. If there is no broadband, I'll need an address where the developers can send me CDs. My address: <DELETED>

I have a laptop with USB and Ethernet capabilities and will have all my web tools with me should anyone need them. If you need any background on me, www.chessworks.com/Schiller/Schiller.htm should have everything you need. My main chess site is www.chesscity.com, which I operate for Cardoza Publishing. I'm also setting up WorldFamilyChess.org in anticipation of the World Families Championships in Hawaii next year. I look forward to seeing you next month! Eric Schiller International Arbiter

Please let me know the date of your arrival so I can make reservations. By the way, the 16th of April is still Easter holiday in here and hotels will be packed. Arriving the 17th is safer. I am very much looking forward to meeting you soon. Kind regards, Enrique Irazoqui

Sent by Eric Schiller

Below are the responses I got from Enrique. It seems that the event may not start on the 16th, and he advises that the 16th could be difficult re Hotel. Of course I can't book a return flight until the dates are set. How are the travel arrangements to be made? Should I simply pass on the flight options and let Byron arrange tickets? Or do you want me to price them and have you pay for them? If I have to go to work immediately on arrival the overseas portion (at least to the event) should be premium economy if at all possible, otherwise I'll be a mess for a day or two. Return flights and intra-Europe no problem. So far, the computer has been spitting out fares so high that it wouldn't make much of a difference. Haven't heard from Byron yet. I still don't understand why so many games, such a long time, for a mere qualifier. Wouldn't 10 games do as well as 20 for our purposes? These long tournaments are hard to publicize. The ongoing Odyssey tournament (which you presumably know about) is not even a blip on the radar. The final match is only 8 games, so what's with the marathon? And if there are only 4 teams (Gambit-Tiger is going to be rightfully miffed for being left out!), why not Semi-final and final match, 8 games ? Much more dramatic and easier to publicize. And only 16 games/days. Just my .02 euros... Eric {COPY OF PREVIOUS MESSAGE}

Sent by Eric Schiller

!@$%!$%! Outlook was just supposed to digitally sign things. Here is what I sent: Of course I am also using MS Office 2000 Outlook, which must be why the HTML doesn't work between us, though it does everywhere else! I realize that the in-crowd of computer people recognize that short matches are less reliable, but having a 20-game qualifier for an 8-game final is still illogical, IMHO. I see the long match as a potentially dangerous precedent for BGN. I would have suggested a higher entry fee to Ray had I known the qualifier would be longer than the final! I just don't see anyone but a computer freak following the action for 20 days. But in any case, why just one game per day? But it is BGN's call, and once the call is made I just get to work. Travel plans are starting to come together. I may return to SF from Dallas and then go to Barcelona via London, but in that case will arrive the 17th, which makes the hotel situation easier, right? I'll need a reservation from then until the end (whenever that turns out to be).

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

>> I realize that the in-crowd of computer people recognize that short matches are less reliable, but having a 20-game qualifier for an 8-game final is still illogical, IMHO.

In computer chess, short matches are like Russian roulette. Are you familiar with the SSDF list? They play thousands of games to make sure, and some people still argue that it is not enough. :)

I see the long match as a potentially dangerous precedent for BGN.

Not necessarily, provided that we keep differentiating computer chess from human chess.

I would have suggested a higher entry fee to Ray had I known the qualifier would be longer than the final! :)

Good idea in any case. I just don't see anyone but a computer freak following the action for 20 days. You are probably right, but among other things it is a matter of choosing the very best program to play Kramnik. Computer chess needs many games.

But in any case, why just one game per day?

I expect to get 4 games per day. Three programs will participate, playing each other 20 game matches, a total of 60 games in 15 days, hopefully. Games will be played 24 hours a day automatically.

But it is BGN's call, and once the call is made I just get to work. Travel plans are starting to come together. I may return to SF from Dallas and then go to Barcelona via London, but in that case will arrive the 17th, which makes the hotel situation easier, right? I'll need a reservation from then until the end (whenever that turns out to be).

The Rocamar hotel is more beautiful, has a nice beach and a decent restaurant, but it is a bit out of town, about 15 minutes walk. The other option is the Playa Sol hotel, just in town. For a few days I would recommend the Rocamar, but for a longer period of time the Playa Sol may be more convenient. You could rent a car, but it is not the best way to move around. I find mopeds ideal here. Let me know. Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

I don't think a tournament is a rating list. Whatever is needed for accurate rating is irrelevant to qualifying, and eliminating luck has never been part of sport. As long as there is a level playing field, even short matches work fine. Granted, FIDE's 2-game knockout formula is silly, but a qualifier with 6-game matches should be fine. Of course going 24 hours per day makes for more games in a short period of time, but it seems to me that going more than two weeks is just way outside the media attention span. The legitimacy of the qualifier is already under question because only a select few were invited to participate, and many strong engines were not. In any event, in my experience the programmers all find something to complain about anyway. Those complaints hold whether the match is 5 games or 50. Kasparov might well have defeated Kramnik in 24 games. What are the web broadcast arrangements? If the games are going 24 hours, is an arbiter present all the time? Are there any written rules and regulations for this tournament? If so, please send me a copy. As for the hotel, I suppose that depends much on the weather. A 15 minute walk doesn't bother me, if the weather is nice enough to make use of the beach. I've heard there is some good snorkeling around there somewhere. I spend a lot of

time in the waters of Hawaii. But if the weather is too cold to swim, then the beach holds less attraction. I'm not much into bicycles, mopeds, scooters. But I don't want to rent a car, too much bother. Where is the tournament played? I have good links to Cadaques web sites and can probably locate everything online, then decide. Eric

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

>> I don't think a tournament is a rating list. Whatever is needed for accurate rating is irrelevant to qualifying, and eliminating luck has never been part of sport. As long as there is a level playing field, even short matches work fine. Granted, FIDE's 2-game knockout formula is silly, but a qualifier with 6-game matches should be fine.

In human chess, yes. In computer chess I disagree, unless there is a large number of candidates, which is not the case. 6 game matches among 3 programs is not better than FIDE's formula. Ideally, we should have played pre-qualifiers and qualifiers, something like the Interzonals and Candidate tournaments of the sixties. But time was short and the only way out was picking the very best programs and do the best possible job.

Of course going 24 hours per day makes for more games in a short period of time, but it seems to me that going more than two weeks is just way outside the media attention span.

It should last just 2 weeks.

The legitimacy of the qualifier is already under question because only a select few were invited to participate, and many strong engines were not.

Which ones? Considering that this tournament will be played on dual machines and that in the man-machine event the program will run on a multi-processor machine, there are no candidates other than Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior. All the others are as far from these 3 as Kasparov from a 2500-2600 player.

In any event, in my experience the programmers all find something to complain about anyway.

Yep.

Those complaints hold whether the match is 5 games or 50. Kasparov might well have defeated Kramnik in 24 games.

Yes, but you can't play a world championship in 4 blitz games. It must be believable.

What are the web broadcast arrangements?

No idea.

If the games are going 24 hours, is an arbiter present all the time?

I hope not! You and I are the arbiters, and as far as I know this will be played home, in a small room. Worse: I sold my house 4 months ago and provisionally I live in a small flat. This can create some problems of logistic.

Are there any written rules and regulations for this tournament? If so, please send me a copy.

None whatsoever, aside from:

- identical dual Pentium-933 machines with 768MB RAM

- 3-4-5 men tablebases

- 20 game matches

- 40 moves in 90 minutes

As for the hotel, I suppose that depends much on the weather. A 15 minute walk doesn't bother me, if the weather is nice enough to make use of the beach.

Weather here is usually fine, but the sea is still too cold in April. There are a few tourists that dare to swim in Spring...

{irrelevant questions on snorkeling and hotel omitted}.

Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

Ray, I'm confused by a lot of this. 1. I thought you were NOT going to go to dual-processor ready machines. This limits the entries to just a couple of machines, not necessarily the best. It is hardly a qualifier in the true sense, and excludes 99% of the programs. Bad for PR, piss off most developers. I think this has even less legitimacy than hand-picking the challengers. Why not just use the computer rating list? I am especially concerned that the assumption is that only 3 programs support multi-processors. I know of at least one other, a developer who has been nagging me about how to enter. Problem is, I don't want it to play because it would create potential PR problems since I am using that engine (in weaker form) in a commercial product. What efforts were made to reach potential players? 2. No broadband, no website local. How on earth is anyone going to see this? Phone dial-up from Spain to England, 24 hours per day, to feed moves? I don't get it. 3. The event will be held in Enrique's home? What will the media make of that? 4. Overall, I think you will have a hard time selling this as a legit qualifier. The Odyssey tournament looks much more impressive. 5. I understand the rush, but have real reservations about how this is going to make BGN look. There will be accusations of deals with Friedel to insure Fritz plays World Championship. I hope you have given some consideration to the PR aspects, because at the moment, this whole thing looks very bad from many points of view. With established events like Paderborn and Odyssey, plus a rating list, this "qualifier" looks more like a stunt to justify one particular engine. And use of dual-processor reduces the relevance of the event to normal people, who don't have such things. You may well wind up with a Junior vs. Fritz match, both sold by the same company. The controversy won't be good in this case, especially if Gambit Tiger finishes ahead of the winner of our event in the other major tournaments. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

Byron-can you look into Eric's points in the email he sent tonight-we have not issued the invites yet so everything is still possible-also has Eric looked at the strange USA people who constantly send me emails-who are they??? do they have a real machine? are deep Junior and Fritz both distributed by the same company-I want it to appear fair and open not a stitch up- but lets face it though-it doesn't matter where we play it _Enrique's house or not-this is a website event not a spectator event-what are the validity of Eric's points about website coverage-I thought Friedel had all sorts of super website ideas! pls sort this amongst yourselves since I am not a computer expert and I am also about to go to china-all I want is to sign the Bahrainis on April 15 and know that a credible qualifier is going to start next day!! ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

I'll keep in touch with Byron, but yes, Junior and Fritz are distributed by Friedel's company, in almost identical packaging. Here are a few points you should consider. I agree, a website event can be anywhere, but when people get to writing about the qualifier, and they will certainly look strangely at en event which is essentially a match between two programs with one shared commercial sponsor who also seems to be involved in the website presentation to the public and press, held in an out of the way place in someone's house. The last point may be irrelevant, as you say, but it adds to an ugly picture. Now if the event really is open to say, 8 programs, running on a single processor or dual (placing those without support for dual processors at a terrible disadvantage), and includes the top programs as invitees (even if they decline), then I see the problem as minor. I don't know how much money is being put into this, but it does seem overkill to have two arbiters on site the whole time. I'll need a week to work out all the details for Bahrain, no more. Of course I'm willing to go as soon as possible and stay to the end, but wonder if that might not be a waste of money. I'd rather a comfortable journey and pleasant working conditions. Lacking broadband access in Spain means doing everything by phone-modem, which is very limiting. If I were to handle part of the webcast duties, it would be a whole lot easier from here. To be more specific, I suggest offering invitations to the top 12 programs on the official Swedish list, appended below. Note that they are NOT in order (you need to look at the ratings), this is from the ongoing Odyssey tournament website http://www.rebel.nl/odyssey.htm. Many will decline, the expense plus $2500 EF being too much for them. Not our problem. As they decline, you could go lower in the list. Enrique tells me 4 games per day is feasible. Here is a reasonable format: 2 groups of 6 teams, each RR section

with 5 opponents x 4 games = 20 games = 5 days. Top two from each section go to finals: 4 players: 3 opponents x 10 games = 30 games = 8 days. Total days = 13 (one day break before finals?), final day has just two games so media deadlines can be met. Total overall 50 games for finalists. Tie break could be overall score prelims+final. I can modify the plan for any non-prime number of entrants, I think. I don't like Swiss, would prefer to see the kind of RR which is envisaged for the cycle. Also, this way the pairings are known, and critical games in the prelims can be hyped. Anyway, that's a preliminary thought. All I need to know right now is what is BGN already committed to. Sounds like there is enough flexibility to allow some modifications to aid the promotion of the event. 24-hour website coverage requires a lot of commentators. Since the games are on the web, you don't need a 24-hour team in Spain. I think 1 commentator per session (4 per day) can handle everything. But I wonder if the resources are there to provide satisfactory web coverage? Is the budget enough to handle it? Is the promotion of BGN website a major goal? If so it needs a lot of attention in the coming month. If the answers to any of these is "no", then serious consideration should be given to handing off the actual game coverage to ICC, where commentators can be provided from anywhere in the world. ICC channels can be used for different languages (Spanish would seem to be a must!). This solves a whole lot of logistical headaches. With under a month to go, and no website facilities up and tested, as far as I know, the public face of the qualifier needs serious attention. From a PR angle, I can see spinning Cadaques as a fountain of creativity, with the world watching to see if the computers can be as creative as Dali. Maybe a link to the Dali Museum would be a nice touch, people could view great art while waiting for moves. Remember that chess is a sport. So I urge you to get from each competitor (or threaten to create ourselves) a sporty logo which can be on screen with the program. Makes it easy to visually identify the competitors, provides relaxation from the text. Haven't forgotten that it is also a business. Please take note that the ad industry has just approved new (larger) standard sizes for banners. You should be soliciting ads from computer companies, computer book and software publishers, and the usual chess crowd. Send me the rates (pretending that I really believe you have a rate sheet ready) and I'll pass them on to Cardoza. Summing up (before the rating list): There is a whole lot to do, and as usual not much time to do it in. I suggest simplification wherever possible, but creating an event which will have credibility. The losers may grumble anyway, but not getting invited is going to create an angry army who will not help our cause when it comes to publicizing the final. PARTICIPANTS 26 PLAYERS

1. SHREDDER 5 2570 —— D

2. GAMBIT-TIGER 1.0 2635 —— GUA

3. REBEL-TIGER 13 2598 —— GUA

4. HIARCS 7.01 2541 —— GB

5. SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS 2641 —— D

6. CHESSMASTER 8000 2520 —— NL

7. VIRTUAL-CHESS2 2530 —— F

8. FRITZ 6B 2629 —— NL

9. JUNIOR 6A 2589 —— IS

10. REBEL-CENTURY3 2582 —— NL

11. GANDALF 432G 2560 —— DK

12. ZCHESS 2.2 2400 —— F

13. ZARKOV 4.5R 2521 —— USA

14. CHESS SYSTEM TAL 2.03 2408 —— GB

15. WCHESS 2000 2509 —— USA

16. LITTLE-GOLIATH 2000V3 2480 —— D

17. PATZER 311B 2550 —— D

18. COMET B27 2510 —— D

19. CRAFTY 18.1 2500 —— USA

20. NIMZO 8 2555 —— A

21. GENIUS 6.5 CZUB-STYLE 2561 —— GB

22. SOCRATES X 2420 —— USA

23. MCHESS 8 2450 —— USA

24. YACE 0.23 2500 —— D

25. EUGEN 7.92 2470 —— E

26. GROMIT 3.7.4 2480 —— D

Sent by Raymond Keene

all good points-what I want is solutions not problems so can you discuss all this with Byron and Enrique and come up with answers-we do have a budget and the more progs that enter at 2500 bucks a shot the larger the budget! thanks ray

27 March 2001

Sent by Eric Schiller

Attached is a word document with suggestions, ranking lists etc. Let me know which way you want to go on the issues discussed.

Here is the Attachment:

Computer qualifier for Man vs. Machine Championship

Eric Schiller, Tuesday, March 27, 2001

This document contains a few comments and suggestions on the upcoming qualifier in Cadaques. Since time is short, I've tried to prioritize them, but since it isn't clear to me exactly what the parameters are I'm assuming the following:

1. The event must take place during the last two weeks of April.

2. No formal criteria for invitation exist yet.

3. The event is designed to choose a challenger for Kramnik in October

4. The goal of the qualifier is the selection of a credible opponent

5. The secondary goal of the qualifier is to promote the main event

6. Another goal of the qualifier is the promotion of the BGN website

7. The entry fee is $2500. The prize is participation in the main event

To establish a credible challenger, we must have a representative number of the top programs. Given that the human cycle qualifier, as presently contemplated, has 24 participants, I think that 12 programs would be ideal. However, the entry fee probably will limit the number to something less. I've already suggested a format for 12 programs, and will do so for 6 below.

The essential question which must be addressed immediately is whether a single or dual processor platform should be used. If there are very few dual processor programs, the additional processor would give them a huge advantage. However, it will also produce the strongest chess. I prefer, without strong feeling, a single-processor competition open to more machines. In the final, it could compete on the strongest compatible hardware available. Either system will work. Enrique is probably best qualified to make the decision, though I think we mustn't over-value the importance of the computer chess crowd, who will not be satisfied by anything we could possible do re the qualifier at this late date.

Once that decision is made, developers of the top programs should be invited. They'll only have a few days to make a decision, and come up with the entry fee, but that's better than shutting them out.

For credibility purposes, I think the SSDF computer rating list is the best guide for invitations. Invite everyone, but accept only those applications (at first) from the top programs, "waitlist" others to fill the spots that are declined. See section below on ranking and locating programs.

As a timetable, if invitations can be sent out by March 31, they could have a week to accept or decline, after which we simply implement the appropriate format. I can work out all variations in advance. There will be bitching about short notice, but the alternative was no invite at all, and there will be more time in the next cycle. The world will view this as fair enough under the circumstances.

Obviously to send out invitations the dates must be fixed. The event should take no more than two weeks under any circumstances, so go for dates that wrap around Dos Hermanas, so that the Spanish press, at least, can deal with both. I think that given some Easter weekend travel problems, that the first games should take place on the 18^th (the day before D.H. starts) and end on April 30 or May 1. That's 13-14 playing days.

Ranking and locating programs

Contact information: http://www.rebel.nl/authors.htm gives you 26 of the top programs. There are a few others to consider, but it is a great start.

Here are the top 50 programs from the March SSDF list. Notice that most of them are versions of the same few basic ones. The top 12 non-repeating are:

Fritz, Junior, Chess Tiger, Nimzo, Gandalf, Hiarcs, SOS, Rebel, Goliath, crafty, Chessmaster, Mchess, Shredder.

I think that is the primary list you should consider. But I would also invite Chess Genius, Chess System Tal, Comet, Gromit, Patzer and the rest of the Odyssey field. You can do so without guaranteeing a spot. The rating list is for games played on machines that are hardly state of the art, so those lower down or missing may not be that much weaker than the top programs. And dual-processor programs are not included.

The applicants will want to know the rules, so these should be determined well before this week. I'll defer to Enrique on all rules issues. But they should be discussed. The main issue for the moment is the dual-processor question.

  Rating + - Games Won Average opposition

1 Deep Fritz 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2650 34 -32 470 66% 2537

2 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2626 24 -24 897 66% 2512

3 Junior 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2594 22 -21 1109 64% 2490

4 Chess Tiger 12.0 DOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2578 27 -27 691 62% 2492

5 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2547 26 -26 741 59% 2485

5 Nimzo 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2547 24 -24 857 59% 2485

7 Nimzo 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2539 30 -30 546 58% 2486

8 Gandalf 4.32f 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2529 29 -29 584 52% 2518

9 Junior 5.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2528 26 -25 750 57% 2476

10 Hiarcs 7.01 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2526 37 -37 361 48% 2539

11 Hiarcs 7.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2525 27 -27 679 56% 2481

12 SOS 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2524 23 -23 925 53% 2501

13 Rebel Century 3.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2514 31 -31 504 50% 2516

14 Goliath Light 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2496 30 -30 546 46% 2527

15 Crafty 17.07/CB 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2487 24 -24 857 47% 2505

16 Nimzo 99 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2486 26 -26 731 51% 2481

17 Fritz 5.32 64MB P200 MMX 2477 19 -19 1338 56% 2437

18 Chessmaster 6000 64MB P200 MMX 2473 61 -53 184 76% 2277

18 Hiarcs 7.32 64MB P200 MMX 2473 24 -24 844 59% 2407

20 MChess Pro 8.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2471 32 -32 474 45% 2507

21 Fritz 5.0 PB29% 67MB P200 MMX 2459 23 -22 1005 66% 2342

22 Hiarcs 7.0 64MB P200 MMX 2458 21 -21 1112 55% 2419

23 Nimzo 99 64MB P200 MMX 2446 23 -23 885 51% 2438

24 Junior 5.0 64MB P200 MMX 2433 20 -20 1185 49% 2440

25 Nimzo 98 58MB P200 MMX 2425 21 -21 1126 56% 2379

26 Rebel 9.0 47MB P200 MMX 2420 24 -23 900 61% 2341

27 Hiarcs 6.0 49MB P200 MMX 2417 24 -24 829 56% 2372

28 Rebel 8.0 51MB P200 MMX 2406 23 -23 887 50% 2406

29 MChess Pro 6.0 41MB P200 MMX 2405 24 -24 831 52% 2392

30 Shredder 2.0 58MB P200 MMX 2400 20 -20 1190 46% 2426

31 MChess Pro 7.1 46MB P200 MMX 2393 22 -22 1042 53% 2370

32 Genius 5.0 DOS 46MB P200 MMX 2390 21 -21 1137 51% 2383

33 MChess Pro 8.0 64MB P200 MMX 2389 27 -27 681 53% 2366

34 Chess Tiger 11.8 Pentium 90 MHz 2382 43 -43 261 50% 2383

35 Gandalf 3.0 64MB P200 MMX 2364 41 -40 307 59% 2296

36 Kallisto II 64MB P200 MMX 2342 35 -35 403 52% 2327

37 Rebel 9.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2334 23 -23 890 47% 2355

38 Hiarcs 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2332 18 -18 1437 51% 2328

39 Genius 5.0 DOS Pentium 90 MHz 2328 18 -18 1558 47% 2347

40 Nimzo 3.5 Pentium 90 MHz 2292 22 -22 998 46% 2322

41 Junior 4.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2287 22 -22 1035 42% 2341

42 Shredder 1.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2282 59 -58 145 53% 2262

43 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2135

44 Meph Genius 68 030 33 MHz 2198 45 -44 248 55% 2161

45 Berlin Pro 68 020 24 MHz 2125 24 -24 850 58% 2071

45 Meph RISC 2 1 MB 2125 62 -66 125 39% 2205

47 Mephisto Montreux ARM 14 MHz 512K 2099 29 -28 689 73% 1930

48 Atlanta SH7000 20 MHz 2090 29 -28 647 69% 1949

49 Sapphire II 2012 35 -33 444 63% 1916

50 Milano Pro SH7000 20 MHz 1974 33 -32 469 61% 1895

6 Team qualifier

Each team plays 6 games against each other team. After those 30 games (8 days), the top two machines play a 16 game match (4 days).

{END OF ATTACHMENT}

28 March 2001

Sent by Byron Jacobs

Eric, cc Ray Thanks for the various emails either sent to me recently or forwarded on to me by Ray. I have read through all this material now and my thoughts are as follows: I think there is one overriding factor which we need to consider before anything else: do we invite machines which are capable of running on a multi-processor platform, or do we open the event up to those which operate only on single processors? My view is that we should restrict the event to those machines which run on multi- processors, as one of these will certainly give Kramnik the best match. It is possible we could open the tournament up and have a single processor event and have the winner running, `on the best available hardware'. However, if a program is currently written only to run on single processors, surely it would be at the very least a major (and presumably impossible) task, for the software to be rewritten to run on a multi-processor platform in a very short time period. Remember that we have to get Kramnik a load of games played by the machine against grandmasters, and so the final version of the program has to be ready within maybe one month of the conclusion of the qualifier. I am no expert but it sounds like a tall order to me for a piece of software to be rewritten to run on a different platform in such a short time span. If we have a number of machines playing, it is quite possible that, due to the slightly random nature of the event, one of the weaker ones will win. This program will then be obliterated by Kramnik which will make the whole event a shambles. I do not think the sponsors will be thrilled to put up 2 million dollars to see Kramnik win 7-1 and press interest to wane after about two days. I do not see that there is any great need to invite machines that will obviously not be able to perform against Kramnik. My understanding is that there are only three programs that fit the bill: Shredder, Fritz and Junior. Shredder has already declined and so we should have a match between Fritz and Junior. Okay, all the other programmers will whine and say that we are cozying up with Friedel, but they can rewrite their programs for our next qualifier. Also, Kramnik was pretty much handpicked (as clearly the strongest challenger) to play Kasparov last year and very few people had much of a problem with that. We need to have a credible challenger and if there are only two then so be it - let them play a match. If you want to hold an eliminator to find a car to compete in a formula one race you would invite the best cars that run on a formula one track. You would not have an eliminator which features cars which specialize in going uphill through mud. There are other issues we need to discuss around the event, such as website coverage, but these are, I think minor, compared with the need to decide on the invitees. In summary, I think we should decide now to invite only multi-processor capable programs. If there are others that can compete with Fritz and Junior then all well and good - let's invite them. If not, we will have a match between the two.

Sent by Eric Schiller

What I don't understand is the assumption that there are only 3 multi-processor programs. Diep and Crafty both have versions, and I don't know about Crafty, but Diep was not invited (probably would decline, because of fee). I don't know which others have dual- processor systems, and don't know that they will be asked. I'd be justifiably furious if I were a developer of such a program. As I said, I don't care about the processor issue much Dual-processor is fine. But if it is just a match between two properties of the same company, closed to everyone else, then frankly I'll pass on this, don't want to be involved. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

nobody has been invited yet-we are still refining the invitational process. the point is to get it right-which program does Eric actually think wd win if all were invited-what is the company that markets both Fritz and deep Junior? Ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

Ray, it is Chessbase, as I've mentioned a few times. You are talking (at the moment) about handing the invitation to the final to a commercial Chessbase property with no one else involved. That I can't be part of. The smell would be a permanent part of my reputation. Going with dual-processor is fine, but there must be some open invitation to anyone with a dual-processor program or (I think) anyone else who wants to pony up $2500. Even though notice is

short, and most will decline, you've got to get someone else in the mix. Even if the event has Junior and Fritz demolishing the single-processor opposition, that is better than a match between two ChessBase properties. My own antipathy toward these two programs is well known, but then I only hate the programs I use daily. I have no problem with one of them winning, but nothing will erase the stink if Friedel is the only possible benefactor. Now that the processor decision is made, the next priority is clearly invitations. I suggest that the event be open to the top engines willing to pay the fee. Get at least a field of 6. If Diep plays, then I can't arbit those games because a version of that engine is going into my new program. But I doubt he'd pay the fees. Also, at this short notice, not many can take two weeks to go to Spain, or really get ready for the event. I don't see any chance of a deluge. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

Eric has some good points here

ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

As things aren't sorted out yet, I told Dallas just to ship me back here on Sunday night, the 15th. They couldn't wait any longer, have 14-day advance purchase to worry about. If it is necessary to fly me from Dallas, I'll just toss the unused return flight DFW-SFO. Keep in mind that the advance purchase of any SFO-BCN fare will expire in a few days. But then again, if it is just the two-machine match there is no reason for me to go for such a long time. Probably could do everything from here, or maybe a quick trip to London and Cadaques. Of course formal rules are needed for this event, and Enrique doesn't have any. Determinations have to be made concerning use of opening books and tablebases. Also some security so that arbiters can check to see that there is no interference. The easiest way, I think, is to have a copy of the program running on an identical machine in the custody of the arbiter. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

The following links provide some useful background with discussion of multi-processor chess or other useful stuff. http://www.inficad.com/~ecollins/winb-mod.htm http://www.xs4all.nl/~verhelst/chess/publications.html http://www.lkessler.com/cclinks.shtml http://www.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/~icca/journal.htm http://home3.swipnet.se/~w-36794/ssdf/ Eric

Sent by Vincent Diepeveen

Hello Raymond, I understand there is a computer-machine event. My program DIEP is a parallel program, running on n processors, and a very strong program. Tactical at the moment probably strongest in the world with loads of chess knowledge, which is the basic difference between Fritz and my program. Hard work has been done at it. I plan to get world champion (in computer chess) real soon with it. This won't be a major problem as this is a new generation of program: the same advantages as Fritz/deep blue had combined with more knowledge. The reason is easy. I am 2284 FIDE rated myself and work fulltime at DIEP nowadays. At AEGON 1997 my program was confused a lot with Deep Blue. Though names look very similar, it is not deep blue. it is better, but commercially seen that is very cool as the average watcher will think a player plays against deep blue :) I would like to know how to join your man-machine event! Friendly greetings, Vincent

29 March 2001

Sent by Eric Schiller

Diep is the programmer of the engine used in my forthcoming program (Cardoza Chess). However, we use a modified version of the program, not full strength. Nevertheless, should Diep play, Enrique should probably handle any disputes to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. It is a *very* strong program. Hope the tube strike isn't too inconvenient today. If we go with the London press thing on the 18th, then fly me on Virgin or some other non-US carrier, as we are heading into a dicey period with one strike already and lots of labor troubles. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

If the following are now decided:

Event begins 4/20

Event will take place in Cadaques

Dual-Processor Pentium platform

Entry fee $2500

Prize: guarantee of loser's share in big match

Then I think the most efficient way of soliciting entries is: a) a post in rec.games.chess.computer with details and entry form (or pointer to web page) b) announcement in TWIC IN TIME FOR MONDAY's ISSUE!!! c) direct contact with Odyssey tournament participants (perhaps they can provide mailing list?) with deadline of April 6. Entries can be reviewed on the weekend, we can adjust format as necessary, and should be ready to go. Enrique can no doubt provide details of what the programmers must supply. I suggest that as with Odyssey tournament we provide a web page describing the participants and giving contact information. After all, with an EF of $2500 the losers should at least get some publicity out of it. We also need this stuff for the press. Next up: determining internet coverage methodology and promotion. I have a few creative ideas for PR, but am concentrating fully on getting the thing set up first. Byron, do you want to be in the loop on rules or should I just develop these with Enrique?

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Posting in a computer-chess forum is the kiss of death, the quickest way to attract ferocious criticism no matter what we end up doing.

RGCC in particular developed in such a nasty way that we had to create CCC in order to escape from there. Then CCC became more of the same.

I am sure Frederic Friedel will confirm. By the way, I took the liberty to include him in the CC line.

b) announcement in TWIC IN TIME FOR MONDAY's ISSUE!!!

c) direct contact with Odyssey tournament participants (perhaps they can provide mailing list?)

The Odyssey tournament is conducted by a notorious psychopath, perfectly discredited in the field of computer chess. Ask the SSDF about him and about his tourney.

We must decide on our own who will be invited to participate in the qualifiers. We know which programs have a chance, which programs are worthy entries.

Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

Agreed, but Friedel, who has commercial interests, must not be involved in any decision making and I strongly suggest that he not be copied on our internal discussions. A match between ChessBase products exclusively is unacceptable. Period. All programmers bitch about each other. They are all equally wrong, and I doubt any (except a few) are worse than the others. There is too much money at stake (over half a million dollars to the winner of the qualifier, as

that is losers share of final) to allow input from a commercial developer. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

So far, just comments from random bozos who got address somehow (except Diepeveen, I supplied him with the contact and he wrote a simple (for him) request for information since he has a dual-processor program. The way to reply to these is with a form letter. Byron can do that in Microsoft Outlook. But the form letter must point to an up-to-date website. The alternative is a mailing list, but not practical for us given time constraints. What I discern from today's messages is that we are going with dual-processor, open only to programs which run on dual-processor. I'm not sure I share Byron's concern that a single-processor program could "accidentally" qualify. Surely we have enough games planned (at least 50) to prevent that from happening. But I'm not an expert, and this issue is not critical to me. As long as the event is not a Chessbase Ltd. Production I'm OK. I get the impression from Enrique that Friedel is involved, and he has sent some copies of internal correspondence to him. I objected strongly, cc. to Byron. We can't have a high-end chess commercial company making decisions. Sure, I'm writing a program now, but it is deliberately dumbed down for the average Joe and the engine I use could not possible win (it is a weakened version of Diepeveen's engine). I would prefer to think that the decision making here is by you, with Byron, Enrique and me feeding in ideas. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

I have had an extensive dialogue with Ossie Weiner of Shredder-shay Bushinsky of deep Junior and Friedel himself. I have spent less physical time talking to Friedel than the other two but welcomed input from all three. none of them is involved in decision making but of course I listened to all their views. I got nowhere with Weiner but I am hoping that both Friedel's and Kasparov websites will push he qualifier heavily-by the way it will be known as the BGN world computer championship ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

Having websites helps with promotion at this late date, but word gets round the internet quickly, and as long as Crowther covers it, the news will percolate through the system. When considering the promotional value of the website, the formula is: Number of viewers minus Viewers who would know about it from some other source It isn't important that most people don't know about the event yet, in Internet time we are in no rush. The news can get out quickly enough, and what is more important is the quality of presentation BGN can achieve. While we don't want to see any weak programs, having one non-commercial combatant (say, crafty) would allow a Cinderella-effect, with lots of people rooting. Would help viewing numbers a bit. Each program has a fan-base, and the more programs, the more viewers. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

I am assured by Friedel that ChessBase only distribute other programs- apart from Shredder- these other programs are not ChessBase programs per se! it is like saying we cannot have just certain programs because they are all distributed by the USCF. the programs and manufacturers in each case are quite distinct and in any case Friedel thinks deep Junior will not renew its chess base distribution contract. there is also a fallacy about the prize fund floating around- the truth is as follows: if the machine wins the final v Vlad it gets $400k-if it draws it gets $200k and if it loses it gets nothing and Vlad walks off with t he 1 million dollars intact-no tax in Bahrain! indeed we may rewrite the contract so that funds won by the program go to a chess foundation for young players i.e. charitable purposes. the real prize for the computer program team is prestige publicity and a wonderful all expenses paid vacation in Bahrain. ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

I don't see any problem with the machine keeping the cash, especially if it is the lower amount. This means the sponsor will be rooting for the machine :-) I have no problem with CB distributing the programs, just not ALL the programs. It is more than just distribution, it is, I'm sure, the main distribution. All copies of Junior I have seen in USA are packaged by CB, just like Fritz. Similar packages. Same slogans. The relationship isn't just that of a seller of various goods. Eric -

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

>>A match between ChessBase products exclusively is unacceptable. Period.

I also believe that an all Chessbase festival is not the ideal scenario. On the other hand it will be difficult to avoid, given the position of quasi-monopoly that they hold in the computer-chess business. There are 2 sides in this, the strict consideration about which programs must participate and the public perception of fairness beyond reproach in everything we are doing. I think it would be greatly valuable on both accounts, and mostly on the second, to get the support of the highly respected SSDF. The best known SSDF member in the computer-chess forums is Bertil Eklund, a man with a justified reputation of competence and personal integrity. If you all agree, I could explain to him what we are planning and include him in our email group as consultant. Else, Raymond or Byron could write to him. … The SSDF as such is never involved in chess events other than their own rating list, but having Mr. Eklund as consultant would be a de facto endorsement. He would also take care of public arguments on CC forums. Of course, we shouldn't mention either point to him. Regards, Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

Seems a good idea to me. I think we just need a few competitors. If Fritz and Junior compete in a small field, no eyebrows are raised. Even if it is just 4 teams. Eric

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Even if it is just 4 teams. But they are all distributed by Chessbase! That's the damn problem. Enrique

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Dear Mr. Eklund,

Brain Games Network who, as you are no doubt aware, organized the Kasparov v Kramnik World Championship match in London last year, are now planning a Man v Machine event to take place in Bahrain later this year. In this match Vladimir Kramnik will play against the strongest chess-playing software program available. This match will be over eight games and will be played at classical time limits. In order to select the program to play the match, we plan to hold an eliminator tournament in which the best programs available will play an all-play-all event. The games in this eliminator must be played at something approaching classical time limits, typically lasting around 4-5 hours, in order that the successful program is the best at slow play. We have yet to decide which programs will participate. We are well aware of your reputation as a man of personal integrity and of great knowledge in the field of computer chess. As such, we are wondering if you would be interested in being involved in this tournament as a consultant. Please let us know if this possibility interests you and, if so, we can open discussions about how to proceed. Kind regards, Enrique Irazoqui

Sent by Eric Schiller

There are several programs (Crafty and Diep come to mind) that are not distributed by CB. What about Gambit-Tiger, Rebel, MChess etc. Do they have dual=processor versions. I know Diep does, believe Crafty does. Socrates? Surely there are at least two programs that are not from the CB stable! It doesn't matter whether CB sells the program, the question is do they distribute it and package it in their usual CB/Fritz packaging. Eric

30 March,2001

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Hi Eric,

>> There are several programs (Crafty and Diep come to mind) that are not distributed by CB.

Crafty is distributed for free as a native CB engine in every CB package. Diep is much too weak. It never managed to do better than middle of the road amateur.

What about Gambit-Tiger

Good program, no SMP, also distributed by CB from April on. , Rebel, No SMP, not that strong anymore. MChess Marty released the last version 3 years ago. He retired. Besides, Mchess is weak by today's standards and not SMP ready. Same for Genius. etc.

Do they have dual=processor versions. I know Diep does, believe Crafty does. Socrates?

Socrates has been dead for ages.

Surely there are at least two programs that are not from the CB stable!

:) Which ones that are minimally strong and SMP ready? You forgot SOS. It is SMP and strong for an amateur. Still, over 100 points weaker than Fritz, Shredder and Junior.

It doesn't matter whether CB sells the program, the question is do they distribute it and package it in their usual CB/Fritz packaging.

They do. The only exception is Diep, but Diep is much too weak. Oh yes, Chessmaster too, but once again it is not SMP and it can't even autoplay. I hope I can convince Stefan to enter Shredder. Wish me luck, because that's our best chance.

Eric, I don't like a CB-only event any better than you do, but if worse comes to worst a DF- DJ match is better than a nobody's tournament. Imagine a Linares with Kasparov, Kramnik, John Smith and Pedro Perez. It seems that the new Deep Junior is not CB yet and maybe it will never be. That would also be a possible way out. Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

It doesn't matter if one or two weaker programs play, as long as they have the entry fee and run on the dual-processor. In any qualifier someone finishes last. If the engines you mention are too weak, so what? It means either Fritz or Junior will win, but that's likely anyway. If we can make the claim that any dual-processor program had a chance to compete, it clears all the PR problems. I don't think the dual-processor Diep is weak at all, he's been working on it almost full- time. A weakened version of Diep is the engine I'm working with for my new mass-market program. (I have no commercial interest in Diep and the Cardoza product is packaged explicitly as a weakened version. I'm not interested in high-end stuff, we are making a program that is fun to play, not a serious analyst.) You seem concerned that one of the weakies might somehow win, and undercut the credibility of the final, but I think that is an extremely remote possibility and in any case would be no different than any other sport. I don't think the event should be "rigged" to exclude upsets. If a "weak" program can pull off an upset in 50+ games, it simply isn't that weak. Our goal is a credible challenger. As long as two strong programs like Fritz and Junior play, our event is credible, no matter who wins. I realize the computer chess crowd will moan no matter what we do, and frankly they are not even a blip on the radar map. Our concern is what a CNN journalist will think, not what a loony programmer says (and Enrique, you should see some of the loonies who have been emailing Ray!). The whole BGN setup was designed so that all championships are OPEN to all via qualification. Given time constraints and other criteria, we have to limit the first event to dual-processor chess programs. Outside of that, I think no criteria other than the entry fee need apply. Certainly we should not exclude weak programs, because that violates the very principle of the BGN enterprise. I think this is a very important point, but defer entirely to Ray and Byron, who are closer to BGN central. Assuming only 4-6 teams, there is time for enough games to insure no freak accidents take place. Fritz, Junior, Shredder, SOS, Diep, Crafty would be a credible field. The first three would be the probably competitors for top honors, but the last three would keep it interesting. If the result of the event is that the world thinks that CB distributes all the best engines in the

world, so be it. But it is a position that must be earned. Eric

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

As agreed before, I include Frederic Friedel in the CC line. Eric, I strongly disagree with you about which programs should participate in the qualifier. To begin with, whether or not Chessbase "must earn" whatever position is irrelevant to us. As I said before, a Linares or a Candidates with Kasparov, Kramnik, John Smith and Jose Perez makes no sense. It would be the laughing stock of the chess world. With enough time ahead of us, maybe for the man-machine event of 2003, we may want to play pre- qualifiers (something like the Interzonals) and a Candidates. Right now we are running too short of time for that. We only have time for the Candidates. The only programs that are not John Smiths are the Deep versions of Fritz, Shredder and Junior. You say that Diep is not weak. Please, show tournament results. I can give you some that are rather pathetic. For instance, in the last Paderborn of a month ago where Diep on a Dual didn't manage to do better than other amateurs on single processor machines. Diep never ever did well in any serious tournament. Aside from Diep, a classic John Smith of your list, all the other programs you mention work as Chessbase native engines, with the exception of Shredder. Then: 1 - Nothing is solved by adding Crafty and SOS, CB engines and weak, between 130 and 170 points under Fritz. 2 - The field is so much weaker that loses credibility: example of Linares with John Smith. 3 - Adding random entries means fewer games per match, greater randomness in the end result. 4 - Shredder is the missing participant that matters. I can try to convince Stefan. It will be difficult but it may work. Byron? I strongly believe we must stick to our original plan of limiting the participation to Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior as the only worthy SMP programs in existence. I am sure that Bertil Eklund, who I hope will join us as consultant, will agree wholeheartedly. We are getting short of time and we should start moving fast. Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

I still disagree. You mention 100-170 points weaker. That is not John Smith, that's Nigel Short, Boris Gelfand level. Now let us consider the plan for the human qualifier, which, since its inception, has planned for open qualifiers. Anything might happen, and given that the top players are invited without qualifying there is a high probability that qualifiers will be over 150 points lower than the top rated invitee (Kasparov, at say 2800). A 2600 player would not be considered a joke. In any sporting qualifier you have the chance for "Cinderella" results. The NCAA basketball tournament shows this every year. The public is used to a "weak" team reaching the final four. In fact, there is more public interest when a dark-horse does better than expected. The only justification for eliminating weaker (but over 2400) programs is logistical, but that doesn't apply to creating a 4 or 6 team field. Of course, if you scrap the idea that this is a qualifier, and treat it strictly as a World Championship, then you can hand-pick the opponent, just as BGN did. But that is not the concept here. If there is a radical change from qualifier to championship, then it is crucial that this not be identified in any way as a qualification, and BGN would have to extend assurances that a true open qualifier would be part of the next cycle. If the BGN human qualifier were in place, that would be an easier sell, but there is still great skepticism about the BGN cycle, understandably, since no public announcements have been made. Even in the case this is a hand-picked championship, I still feel that having one company owning exclusive right to participate will be viewed as totally invalidating the event in the eyes of the public. Since credibility is such a high concern, it is counter-productive. If the rules simply state that only dual-processor programs can compete, then every such program in the world could play and I doubt that even 10 entries could be found. It is better to let other programs compete and do badly if they are weak. Fritz, Junior and Shredder would of course benefit as distinguishing themselves as in a class without peer (such as Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand enjoy now). And if Chessbase distributes all the top programs, all credit to them! But I think that your comments that all other engines are too weak to participate is simply an opinion which BGN would have to go to great trouble and expense to defend empirically. Public opinion is going to go against any hand-picked event where participation was limited to two or three engines. Four participants seems to small to me, but possibly can be justified, whether or not Shredder is among them. Six would be ideal. I can't see any serious, justifiable criticism if BGN, in its very first event, extended an invitation to all dual-processor machines. Of course, I'm looking primarily, almost

exclusively, from the PR angle (which is what Ray expects me to do). Credibility is the primary goal. I don't care at all what the in-crowd of the computer chess world thinks of the quality of the weakest games. I care what the world thinks of the quality of the best games, but more importantly, of the fairness of the selection procedure. There is enough head-to-head evidence among Junior, Shredder and Fritz that we could probably just skip this event and select one on the basis of some objective criteria. I don't think the world would view this as any less fair than only inviting the three and seeing what happens in one event. If the event is not in any sense open to the world, it just isn't part of the BGN scheme of open qualifier —> match championship. If it is a championship, and not a qualifier, then use the same scheme as in the human championship and just select a challenger. A Anand-Kramnik match was never contemplated, due to time constraints. The exact same time constraints exist now. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

Did I mention ferret? It won many strong events. Definitely parallel. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

Here are the best engines on ICC, playing at standard (> 15 minutes) time controls.

1. evilcomp = Deep Fritz

2. Netsurfer = Deep Fritz

3. Crawly = Fritz

4. HIARCS

5. ShredderX

6. Val Vipp = Deep Fritz

7. Silicon = Tiger

8. ChessBeta = Tiger

9. Ferret

10. Interceptor = Junior

11. SpitFire = Tiger

12. Kooloo = Tiger

31 March, 2002

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

This list is truly great. It shows once again which programs deserve to be consider as contenders for the match Kramnik-machine. You will see that Hiarcs and Tiger on one processor machine do better than Ferret on a Quad (4 processors) Xeon. SMP ready programs that do well here are, as expected, Deep Fritz, Shredder and Junior. We must draw the line somewhere, and sheer strength is our only possible criteria. The inclusion of relatively weak programs like Crafty, SOS, Ferret, Diep, will be perceived as absurd, for the simple reason that each one of them on a Quad machine is less strong than Tiger and Hiarcs on a single processor machine. Aside from this absurdity, the inclusion of such programs in a relatively short tournament increases randomness and uncertainty to such a degree that we risk falling in a scenario in which Kramnik will end up playing a meaningless program. This scenario would disrupt the whole event, and thus we must avoid it at all cost. Face it, Eric. There are only 3 worthy contenders, Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior, as confirmed by the SSDF list, Cadaqués tournaments and even this ICC list you mention. It is as simple as that and there is no way around it. Best scenario: these 3 engines play each other over 20 game matches, all against all. Second best, if Shredder does not participate: a "final" between Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. Both of them won Cadaqués, topped the SSDF list, won World Championships. Either one is beyond reproach and free of risk. I would like to hear what Bertil has to say about this issue. Enrique

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

I agree with all your points, Bertil. I will try to convince Stefan, but you know Ossi well enough and how difficult it will be for him to release his jaws and let Stefan go. Wish me luck... Enrique

Enrique Irazoqui skrev: This list is truly great. It shows once again which programs deserve to be consider as contenders for the match Kramnik-machine. You will see that Hiarcs and Tiger on one processor machine do better than Ferret on a Quad (4 processors) Xeon. SMP ready programs that do well here are, as expected, Deep Fritz, Shredder and Junior. We must draw the line somewhere, and sheer strength is our only possible criteria. The inclusion of relatively weak programs like Crafty, SOS, Ferret, Diep, will be perceived as absurd, for the simple reason that each one of them on a Quad machine is less strong than Tiger and Hiarcs on a single processor machine. Aside from this absurdity, the inclusion of such programs in a relatively short tournament increases randomness and uncertainty to such a degree that we risk falling in a scenario in which Kramnik will end up playing a meaningless program. This scenario would disrupt the whole event, and thus we must avoid it at all cost. Face it, Eric. There are only 3 worthy contenders, Deep Fritz, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior, as confirmed by the SSDF list, Cadaqués tournaments and even this ICC list you mention. It is as simple as that and there is no way around it. Best scenario: these 3 engines play each other over 20 game matches, all against all. Second best, if Shredder does not participate: a "final" between Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. Both of them won Cadaqués, topped the SSDF list, won World Championships. Either one is beyond reproach and free of risk. I would like to hear what Bertil has to say about this issue. Enrique

Bertil: It is in fact true that if this event had been played on today's fastest single-machines it had been a must to invite Tiger (Gambit). The new Tiger with tablebase-support could very well be the strongest of today's programs. In a short match it could also have a good chance to win against the dual-programs. Mr Theron, the author of Tiger doesn't seems to have any intensions to make Tiger a SMP-program, at least in the near future. Therefore it seems clear to me that the only realistic contenders are Deep-Fritz, Deep-Shredder and Deep- Junior. The only problem is to convince Millenium or probably a better way is to convince Stefan Meyer Kahlen to participate in the event. Shredder5 isn't officially included in the SSDF-list but it isn't far away from the top-program Deep-Fritz. I think you can try to convince Stefan with the argument he use himself, he seems to believe that Shredder is relatively better in long-time-control games and on faster hardware, another point is that Shredder slightly dislikes the AMDk6-2 450 processor used by SSDF. With "today's" hardware it could probably do a bit better. I know that Shredder5 (after several hundred games) is clearly weaker then the competition in blitz-games, but one of the strongest in tournament-control games. I am absolutely sure that Stefan wants to participate in this event and my suggestion is that someone with a good relationship to him try to convince him. I know that Enrique and Stefan often corresponds by email, so I guess he is the right person. Bertil

Sent by Enrique Irazoqui

Absolutely. It must be well understood and signed in the contract that if Shredder participates in the Qualifiers it will play Kramnik. First step, convince Stefan. Second, Stefan convinces Ossi. Third, both sign the contract. All are required conditions. Otherwise Shredder is obviously out. Enrique

Sent by Eric Schiller

I think this is a perspective from the small world of computer chess. No one in the world expects a competition to be without weak participants. From the Olympics to every major sport. I find the emphasis on strength strange. It is only the strength of the winner that counts. I find every person in the computer chess world has a pile of strong opinions which can be reduced to : I like this engine, all others are crap. There is no substance at all to this argument. No reason to exclude weak competitors from an open event. Exclusion just creates more (justified) criticism. The difference between the strongest and weakest engine is far less than that between Kasparov and many of the players he faces in qualifying competition. In 1984, Smyslov was much weaker, comparatively, than any of the programs you list. In any case, there is no empirical evidence, since the programs are constantly changing and evolving. The event would have more credibility with Hiarcs and Tiger in it. Seems to me someone is afraid that one of the lesser programs might just expose weaknesses in the commercial giants. This would be a great

result in terms of PR. Everyone loves an underdog. In light of the below I feel more strongly that single-processor programs should be allowed to compete, but can live with the decision for dual. (Of course, why not quad? Wouldn't the experimental programs running on quad beat out the big commercials who don't). Not even a fraction of a percent of the people who watch the games are capable of understanding the subtle differences that distinguish 2800 from 2700 or 2600. The only people who care are computer chess insiders, who are of no relevance to BGN's business plans. The event should remain open or a single program should be hand-picked. No other path is worth contemplating. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

Good point Ray. Look, you will have a lot of grief if BGN just arbitrarily chooses a few programs (more trouble than if you choose the challenger directly!). This is why I am so adamant that either you have to let everyone in (why the hell not, there is no decent argument against a free for all?) or create exacting criteria. Among the criteria, the company with distribution rights must be invited. I have heard no decent or credible argument why all dual-processor programs shouldn't be invited. And if a top single-processor program like Tiger wants to play, why not? Enrique's attitude is that of a typical computer chess insider. No one on earth can rationally discuss comparative strength of programs. The only test is to let them battle it out. This attitude is like saying that Judit Polgar shouldn't play a top event because she is a girl and isn't good enough. I doubt you could take more than 30% against any of the programs Enrique is dismissing as "weak". I know I can't. Suzanne was an idiot but on one issue she was right: the need to keep the cycle open so that some random bozo can get to the final stages before being cremated. If a computer enters and scores zero points out of 50, no one but computer geeks would raise an eyebrow. The perspective you are getting just is not valid in the PR or business world. It is our job to make whatever event we have credible. Basic PR. If some programs bomb out, we smile and say that is the price of open qualifiers. Next time we will have the opportunity for a more rigorous qualifying procedure. Meanwhile, either open the door or just designate Fritz or Junior for Bahrain and be done with it. Looks like this one has to be your call. I don't see any chance Enrique and I will agree. We are in different worlds. Set your own goals and pick the solution that most advances them. Eric

Sent by Eric Schiller

Thanks for the input! I think I've made most of my arguments in exchanges before you came in, but just so you know where I stand: I believe that AT LEAST all dual processor programs should be invited. It is of no concern to me how strong the programs are, as long as some top programs are there to legitimize the result. My views are based on the goals of BGN in public relations and promotional terms. The human cycle will be open to all. For me, the worst possible scenario is one in which ChessBase GmbH has exclusive distribution of ALL the competitors, while programs with bona fide credentials like Tiger and non-commercial efforts like Crafty are excluded. I believe in such a case that BGN would be better off simply choosing the challenger, as in the case of Kasparov vs. Kramnik. To exclude programs because someone thinks they are too weak is just not a defensible image in the media. I have very little contact with the computer chess community, in spite of working on Kasparov's Gambit, Chessmaster 5000 and now Cardoza Chess. I know the personalities tend to be extreme, and have a policy of not putting much faith into various claims of comparative strength. I haven't looked at rec.games.chess.computer in a couple of years. The only results I trust are head-to-head on equivalent hardware. To me, the ideal event has between 4 and 12 programs participating. I doubt that we could find anywhere near a dozen (after all the entry fee is $2500), but would me most comfortable with 6 competitors. 4 would do, if it included at least 1 which is not exclusively distributed by ChessBase. Enrique obviously feels strongly the other way. It will be up to Ray Keene and BGN to make the final call. Eric Schiller International Arbiter (no cc on this, it is just to bring you up to date with where things stand in the discussion)

Sent by Eric Schiller

It isn't easy to see what you are agreeing to in the last few emails. Maybe worth a complete sentence from time to time. I'm still uneasy about Friedel being copied on internal correspondence. He's going to hate me more than ever now, though I think that either of my proposals benefits him more than the others (assuming that one of his "properties" wins). Eric

2 April, 2001

Sent by Eric Schiller

It's Monday, when I traditionally try to sort out what is going on in the world. Not very successfully. Can you help me by updating me on the following?

1. Are we set for an April 20 start, with some function in London? You might want to get my ticket purchased this week to save some money on the advance purchase?

2. Bahrain dates confirmed for Oct. 1-14? (Schools are asking me to work out a schedule for next year)

3. Any word from Argentina on the Candidates? What are they supposed to be supplying and do you need a fallback option?

4. Internet qualifier can be on ICC. They are handling the Dos Hermanas Qualifier quite well. I just finished playing one yesterday, finished 12th (ahead of many GMs and IMs), defeating players rated way up there (performance rating on ICC over 2750, I think).

<deletion of material regarding non-related business proposition>

And for you: 1. Latest "news" on your website is Jan. 29. I've mentioned this enough times to Byron that I don't want to push. But it really is sad. 2. Web pages still show human open qualifier starting in "Early 2001", Ron King match this month! "Cobweb" sites are usually seen as a sign that a business is failing. Any potential visiting your site would be alarmed. I think you really need to crack the whip here. Your website is all the world sees of BGN, and it is pathetic. If you search for the Kasparov-Kramnik match, more hits show up at Malcolm's site. I tried a generic World Championship search yesterday, wound up directly at Malcolm's Henderson page!! I deliberately say nothing about the computer qualifier. You have all the issues, all my positions, and I await the decisions from above. I'm happy to do anything you like, unless it is just Fritz vs. Junior, in which case you don't need me there anyway. Eric

3 April 2001

Sent by Byron

Dear Eric, We have now taken a final decision that we will invite four programs to play in the eliminator. These will be Fritz, Junior, Shredder and IBM. Obviously IBM will not play and probably Shredder will not play either. We still have some hopes to gain the participation of Shredder but most likely it will be just Fritz and Junior. All reputable sources indicate that these are the best programs and I do not believe the event will lack credibility as an eliminator. For the next cycle we will invite the top programs and also have a further event where the best `amateur' programs can compete for a place in the final eliminator. However, for this cycle we do not have sufficient time for this. Of course many people will complain, but there is not a lot we can do about this. I know you have reservations about a Junior - Fritz match. However, we would still like you to be involved in the event and also the Man v Machine match in Bahrain, specifically as one of the arbiters. However, if you feel that you do not want to be involved in a Junior v Fritz eliminator we will respect this decision. The event in Cadaqués will probably start on the 16 April and we anticipate it will run for two weeks. Please let me know if you want to be involved. Thanks, Byron

Sent by Eric Schiller

I cannot take part in an event limited to Fritz and Junior, so if the others decline I will have to pass on this. It is unfortunate, because I had already committed to the time period and cancelled all of my engagements here. So it is going to cost me a lot of money to give up the match in Spain, not just the lost fee but a lot of school teaching which cannot be restored. But I feel strongly that this event will come under justifiable criticism, and I carry around enough baggage as it is. I can't be part of such an event. If Shredder agrees I can consider the event so please keep me informed. I have no problem with the final, and am willing to work on that match subject to suitable arrangements. Eric Schiller

Sent by Eric Schiller

Since it seems I will not be participating in Cadaques (unless Shredder changes its mind and a fourth team is found, both unlikely) I need to know whether you still want me to do the rules for Bahrain, and if so who I should be working with. It can be done by email and some phone conferences. But we'll need to work out some other financial arrangements. I'm sorry it didn't work out. I made a lot of difficult adjustments to free up the time in late April, and have driven everyone here crazy. It is too late for the schools to change their schedules, so this is going to cost me serious money, just after Tax Time. Still, I'll cope. But lets get the Bahrain stuff sorted out contractually, since now it seems I must pass on the World Youth because of the date conflicts. Eric

Sent by Raymond Keene

once we know about Shredder for sure we will make a plan b ray

Sent by Eric Schiller

OK. Since I've already cancelled all my teaching, I'll just wait and see. Shredder-Junior- Fritz is far from perfect but is acceptable. Still, would be better with a fourth, even a weakie. But if Shredder says no please let me know ASAP so I can try to reschedule a few things and cut my losses. I have an organizational meeting in a few hours with one of my new schools. I'll tell them I am unavailable this month but will keep the door open for sessions last two weeks of April just in case. Eric

8 April 2001

Sent by Eric Schiller

OK. So it looks like I won't be going, though I guess that's still up in the air. Just keep me informed. I've let my students know that at this point it is unlikely that I will go to Spain, but haven't scheduled anything (though I just pushed one chess mom out the door as she tried to grab both weekends, told her I'd let her know by Thursday). On the other hand, I have paid my taxes and have kept the time period clear, in case there is a need for me there and there is another participant. Short notice is of course the rule on a Ray Keene production! On that assumption, should I be planning to do the Bahrain rules with Enrique by email/fax? I see no problems with that. But if I am not on the Cadaques budget, we should work something out to build the rules into a letter of agreement for Bahrain. Meanwhile, any movement in Buenos Aires re Candidates? If it is not firm, what are they offering so I can see if California or Hawaii has interest. I have good venues in both places.

20 April 2001

From Byron Jacobs

Dear Eric,

Ray forwarded me a recent email from you and asked me to respond.......

The Machine v Machine event, with Junior playing Fritz, will start in Cadaques on Tuesday next week. We will be doing the publicity for this (mainly on the web) today, Friday, and on Monday.

The dates for the Kramnik v Machine match are still as you indicated in your recent email. I presume we will need you there, but you should liaise with Ray on this one.

I do not know anything about the Candidates qualifier - again refer to Ray.

Best regards, Byron

PS: Sorry I have not been in touch, but you indicated you did not want to be involved in the Machine v Machine event.

Sent by Eric Schiller

Thanks. No, I don't want to be involved in the Fritz-Junior match (under any circumstances), but of course I am interested in following it. Ray had wanted me in Cadaques primarily, he said, to work with Enrique on match regulations for the October match. That of course can be done comfortably at a distance, However, he indicated he wanted the rules and regs done by the end of the Cadaques event, so presumably work should begin soon. Can you send me whatever rules exist and are implemented for the F-J match? Eric

22 April 2001

Sent by Eric Schiller

And so it begins ....

From: Sam Sloan*************************************************************************** PRESS RELEASE *************************************************************************** World Champion Chess Programmer Explains Boycott of Bahrain Qualifier Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, the programmer of World Computer Chess Champion program SHREDDER (published by MILLENNIUM 2000 GmbH, Munich), has explained publicly why he is boycotting the tournament in Cadaques, Spain, which has been announced as a qualifying event for the Kramnik v Computer match scheduled to take place in Bahrain in October. Meyer-Kahlen's explanation is this: ———————————— A lot of discussion is going on about the planned Kramnik machine match and I think it is necessary to give you my point of view about the whole issue. I refused to play in this event for various reasons which I will sum up below: * The final version of the program playing against Kramnik must be made available to Kramnik end of July already. This makes an match with equal chances impossible as it will be very easy for Mr. Kramnik to prepare and win a match against any program under this circumstances. I would even say that it is possible for human players of my strength to win a match against any program with these conditions. * For a computer to play the match against Kramnik he must win a qualifier against some other chess programs. This qualification tournament will be called the BGN computer world chess championships and the winner will be called the BGN computer chess world champion. I see no reasons to have another computer chess world championship and another computer chess world champion besides the ICCA tournaments and the ICCA champion so I will not play there. * The first time I have heard about this qualification tournament was two weeks before the scheduled start of this event. * The event will be played with the autoplayer and without any representative of the programs on site. * The starting fee for each program will be $5000. * The prize fund in the human machine match will be divided quite uneven in the case that Kramnik or the computer will win. In this respect the whole issue seems to me like an event only for Kramnik and the organizers to make big money, not to play a real match against a computer. * There are many more points like a clause that all the micro Deeps can be kicked out anytime when IBM decides to join or severe restrictions in the marketing of this event, but I think those given above should be sufficient to understand my point of view. So I have various reasons not to join this thing, each of those being enough not to join. I hope that all the speculations, wild guesses and accusations concerning my withdrawal will end, particularly of those guys who even haven't seen the contract, including one of my colleagues here. Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, author of Shredder

———————————— This affair is now being much commented on many Internet sites and chat groups. One of the experts who has given his opinion is Professor Robert Hyatt (USA), whose program CRAY BLITZ won the World Computer Chess Championship in 1983 and 1986.

Writing in the CCC forum Professor Hyatt says: ———————————— I totally disagree. There is exactly _one_ program that should be playing Kramnik. Shredder. Shredder has won all of the recent computer chess tournaments. It is the current world champion. There is _absolutely_ no reason to suggest that a playoff for the right to play Kramnik is needed. In fact, the suggestion is really insulting to SMK and Shredder. If a program didn't participate in the last WMCCC event, then I conclude that Shredder is better and the author was afraid to participate and lose. And by doing that, he gave up the opportunity to take part in this match. I don't understand why there is _any_ sort of playoff under discussion, other than it is politically/marketing related. yes a newer program might be a bit better than the older Shredder that won the last WMCCC. But the new Shredder could well be better than that. closed-door back room tournaments are _not_ the way to handle this. ———————————— Another prominent voice is Bruce Moreland, the programmer of the strongest American chess program FERRET and runner-up of the Absolute Computer Chess World Championship 1999.

He comments: ———————————— If I may speculate, what I believe is going on is that

Brain Games wants to present this as a match between world champions, but the Brain Games guy absolutely doesn't get along with David Levy, so it's not like he could do this in conjunction with the ICCA, so he must call some program the world champion. The problem is that we have a world championship sanctioning body, the ICCA, then we have all agreed to their rules for selecting a champion, including the Fritz team and the Junior team, and we selected one, and it was neither Fritz nor Junior. Shredder won, and we should give him his due, ESPECIALLY the programmers, and support him as our representative until after the next WCCC. I wouldn't care if Brain Games just said, "We'll pick some program to play in our match, by whatever means we choose." But they go over the line when they attempt to call this program they pick a "champion". We already have one of those, and we don't need another. The right thing to do in this case is to allow Stefan the right of first refusal. If a champion is needed, he should be our consensus pick. If Stefan is not allowed the opportunity to represent us as champion, everyone should be able to figure out what to think of those who would usurp his rightly-won title.

———————————— It is difficult to imagine under the circumstances how the organizers in Bahrain expect the Kramnik match to have any credibility in the media or with the chess public. Best regards Ossi Weiner.

Sent by Eric Schiller

Well, it comes as no surprise. Establishing the credibility of the challenger is now a PR challenge, and it won't be easy. Hopefully the next time there will be a proper open qualifier. Meanwhile, you wanted me to complete the rules for Bahrain by the end of the qualifier, but I haven't heard anything from Byron or Enrique. Do you have a new timetable for that? It is even more important to have a credible set of rules, and some big issues have to be discussed. What about the format of the Candidates? Is that set? Eric

END OF PART ONE

Man vs. Machine Challenge: Part Two

by Eric Schiller

Negotiating the Rules

This second section of our Man vs. Machine background concerns the period between the end of the Fritz vs. Junior "qualifier" and the initial postponement of the match in September 2001. Once again, the original email correspondence is presented without commentary. However, emails during this period contained not only discussion of rules and procedures, but also sponsorship, future plans and various other topics.

For the most part, only material relevant to the match rules and conditions are presented. Sections dealing with other matters have often been deleted and all such deletions are indicated. Again, I have corrected typos but otherwise the emails are presented as they were received, except that repetitions of previous emails, quoted in the text, are eliminated.

I have retained some irrelevant material which I consider to be of sufficient interest and is not of any particular commercial interest. After all, the organization of a major chess event is a complicated matter and some of the advice passed back and forth can be useful to those wishing to become involved with such projects. Many technical details do impact on the rules (especially scheduling matters). So, for example, if a press tour by the participants is under consideration, that becomes an obligation and is related to match regulations. However, a great deal of discussion is just "shooting the breeze", passing around ideas. I don't think it is fair to the individuals involved to reveal their unimplemented ideas, which they may wish to use in future events, and I mention them only when relevant to the conditions for the Man vs. Machine match.

New participants:

David Massey, CEO of Braingames

Sir Jeremy Hanley, Braingames co-founder

James Pryor: Handling Bahrain arrangements

Frederic Friedel: Chessbase executive

Matthias Wüllenweber: Fritz Programmer

Miguel Illescas: representing Vladimir Kramnik

John Henderson: press officer

Rob Ruditz & Adam Pedowitz, Press release authors

John Fioraventi, Marston International (press relations)

In most cases, I have only indicated the primary recipient. Most emails were copied to various individuals. I have deleted signature lines to save space.

Note: when the list of recipients contained representatives of all parties, I have simply listed them as To: All.

1 May 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

But I see on your website that Enrique has been given the job of Chief Arbiter! I thought that was my job. Please advise ASAP as I had turned down something in Spain. This is very disconcerting.

4 May 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

don't worry-you are both invited-he's technical you are chess! you aren't being left out !! obviously we need an arbiting team as before-I may even get Yuri back. it should be great

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Thanks, but please have Byron correct the next postings. I got a whole bunch of emails from people wondering whether I had been pushed out, and I had no answer for them. I assumed that there would be two equal arbiters, one from Computerland and one from flesh and blood.

We do need rules, though. Has anything been agreed with Vladimir? Remember that the Deep Blue match was an exhibition with rules that favored the machine. A major concern is access to opening book, and whether human should have same right. It is, after all, a chess contest and not a memory contest. But I don't know if Vlad has any deep feelings on the subject.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I agree with all this - you have described situation perfectly-rules need a confab between you me Enrique and Friedel-do you have all the relevant email contacts?

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I'm sure I can come up with them. But if Friedel is involved, shouldn't a Kramnik representative be involved too? Or better to leave both out? I can do conferences by Internet but that might not work well with you and Enrique who have phone connections. Perhaps easiest just to email drafts. I'm sure there must be existing rules (Aegon, for example) that we could look at as a start. Or maybe Friedel can send some. However, most rules apply to exhibitions, and this is a real contest, so a fresh look is needed at some issues.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

Miguel Illescas will represent Kramnik-good point of course-emails will follow

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Excellent, that is a good working group, two arbiters, two player reps and the match director.

From: Raymond Keene To: All

today I spoke with world champion Vladimir Kramnik at some length and the following emerged: 1 while Vlad is in hiding training to clobber Anand and Kasparov again in upcoming events he wants Miguel and Fred to contact each other to implement the various conditions from the contracts in a smooth and amicable way-technicalities of seeing the program-organizing practice and gm games with it etc-I hope only to become involved if there is a problem you two cannot solve-so pls no problems!! 2 it is likely that Miguel is providing the BGN playing platform and Fred /ChessBase may become heavily involved in the BGN match website-so cooperation and exchange of ideas here wd be fruitful-Fred will hopefully come to London for a meeting very soon! 3 the arbiters for the match will be Enrique and Eric Enrique technical-Eric chess-I would like them to produce a set of agreed rules covering all points in good time for the match-Eric wrote the excellent rules for the London wcc last year-Enrique is the worlds leading computer tester-we need a good and fair set of rules-if anyone does not have the contracts that already agree the ground precepts then pls ask Byron to provide you with a set! 4 Byron- representing BGN- will oversee the whole process and make sure we get what we want when we want it! thanks Byron have I missed anything? -ask me if you have questions-but lets get the whole process started-the goal as you all know is to provide as far as is possible a fair and

level playing field so that neither computer nor machine is faced with a crushing disadvantage in any area!! we have a magnificent team and I plan to show the world that we are scrupulous fair above board and pre-eminently capable of staging the world's largest and greatest ever internet show!!!!!!!!!!! we will bring credit to chess Bahrain the players and our companies when we get this right. many thanks to you all!! ray

From: Adam Pedowicz To: Raymond Keene

Dear Ray:

Following is the press release with your changes.

Sincerely,

Rob Ruditz & Adam Pedowitz

* * * * * * *

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

World Chess Champion Kramnik To Face Deep Fritz

In Man vs. Machine Challenge

NEW YORK: May 4, 2001 _ Brain Games Plc, the London-based events company, have announced a $2 million sponsorship from the Emir of Bahrain to fund a match between a computer program, Deep Fritz and the World Chess Champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in the Gulf State next October. The champion stands to win $1 million while a further million will be spent in arranging the event. Kramnik will take home $800,000 if he draws and $600,000 if he loses.

The previous World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov, who was defeated by Kramnik at the Brain Games World Chess Championship in London last November lost to IBM's Deep Blue computer in 1997. IBM were invited to compete against Fritz this year but declined.

The Deep Fritz software program qualified to play Kramnik after beating rival software Deep Junior in a contest organized by the leading computer chess expert, Professor Enrique Irazoqui, Cadaques in Spain. The two programs contested 24 games on identical dual processor Pentium PCs. The Deep Junior was programmed by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky of Israel while Franz Morsch of Holland programmed Deep Fritz.

Kramnik faces a formidable challenge. Fritz has previously beaten Deep Blue, Kasparov and World Chess Federation Champion, Anand. It has yet to beat Kramnik. "Fritz is a remarkable software," said Brain Games match director, Raymond Keene, OBE. "It was chosen by the Mir Space station crew to be their opponent while in orbit only to hurtle to earth in flames when Mir crashed last month."

The Bahrain event will be the first time the Man vs. Machine contest has been staged since Kasparov lost spectacularly to IBM's Big Blue in 1997. Then it was one of the biggest Internet events ever and the IBM website was receiving over 22 million hits in its final hour. "We are confidently predicting an even bigger audience this year," says Raymond Keene.

Meanwhile, the Brain Games World Chess Championship, continues to attract an enormous international audience. The next will be staged in October 2002. "The 2000 Championship we organized in London when Kasparov lost to Kramnik, attracted over 100 million hits on our website _ a fairly staggering figure," said Brain Games Chairman, Sir Jeremy Hanley, adding that entries from the global chess playing public for the upcoming World Chess Championship to be held in October 2002, will be possible from Mid 2001.

Sir Jeremy, who together with other Brain Games directors was in New York this week meeting investors said that the company hopes to raise up to $8 million to fund working capital, website development and the underwriting of sporting events from existing and new investors prior to listing on the London stock market by the end of this year.

In its first round of funding last April, Brain Games Network, Plc, raised $5 million from private investors. It raised a further $750,000 in working capital earlier this year, valuing the company at a potential $37 million.

###

Contacts:

Victor Webb, Marston Webb International Raymond Keene, OBE, Brain Games Network, Plc David Massey, Brain Games Network, Plc

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I suggest you arrange with Vlad for him to make a visit to California to address Silicon Valley types (live online net feed) and perhaps do a TV show or two (Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Politically Incorrect?) and generally hype the match. It could be done at his convenience at any time. It would not be cheap, BGN would have to foot the bill as it would look strange and "cheap" otherwise, though of course maybe some other activity could recoup costs. Maybe a media stop in Atlanta (CNN) or New York. I think the investment (Less than 25k) would be worth it. Vladimir understands the need for publicity.

I'm sure it would be a major internet event, and would get people excited about the match. It could be done entirely via Internet, but that would lose the big benefit of BGN pressing the flesh of all those potential investors.

Ideally, it would need no more than a week. One day in Northern Cal (lecture at Stanford as Kasparov did, plus invitation only high-class event in the evening.), 1-2 in LA (depending on TV appearances) and 1 on East Coast, with 1 for transcontinental travel. If schedule works out, TV appearances would precede Internet event. It makes it easier to get on TV if they know you have something to hype. Strange but true. One day in Atlanta could give him Larry King live and Talk Back live, at least.

Advance planning is needed, but you should think about this and other ways the match can be promoted. To attract investors now, you need them thinking the match is already a success. You do that by getting people excited and getting serious media coverage. If they see it on CNN, they will be convinced. If Jay Leno and David Letterman make jokes about it, then it must be worth mentioning.

By the way, with a TV writer strike looming, most networks are looking to news and interview shows to fill the void. It is easier than usual to get access.

6 May 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

met the Laus-charming people-gave them chess books and took them to home

house for lunch!

now to Bahrain

Kramnik v fritz

games on October 14 16 18 20 24 26 28 30

you will be required a few days early and to stay on a few days late for press cons prize givings etc

conditions

return air to Bahrain

free hotel

free food

probably a limo at your disposal

there are stacks of free days-the weather is great -the hotel has 7 different

restaurants and there are beaches and pools all over

if you want to bring a female friend we can offer her free accommodation in a

shared ( with you) double room. your food allowance might cover her as well

-depends how hungry you are!

so far we have no commercial sponsor so the current minimum guaranteed fee is $5000-00 if we get a commercial sponsor-and we are trying!- we will automatically increase this

Irazoqui will be computer arbiter you will be chess arbiter

in practice you will run it together but I expect him to defer to you on purely chess points and vice versa when it is a computer point

there will be a match committee as in London to resolve disputes

Buzan lord Hardinge Schmid Olafsson etc—

you are free to talk to the press /write what you like etc etc except we wd

hope that no negative comments wd be published -unless there is a disaster of

such humungous proportions that it cannot be ignored!

let me know

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Conditions look fine. Fee is fine. If you get more sponsorship, upgrades on the flights, especially SFO-London (that's the best route to Bahrain anyway) is more important to me than more cash. Virgin Airways —> Gulf Airways is easiest. I can always do with a day or two in London. I had already blocked all of October and a few days into November. I had planned to do Bahrain and Spain but the dates now conflict and Bahrain-Barcelona can't be done conveniently enough to get me there for the end. My students can always get help via email and phone. Venue in Bahrain sounds like a nice vacation if the games go smoothly. Of course if the Candidates come through, there will probably be things to work on, too. I would like you to consider my technology for automatic translation of commentary, but I'll write you with a full proposal on that.

I'm of course confining myself to positive remarks. I've said nothing public about the qualifier, and Fritz is certainly as worthy an opponent for Kramnik as anything else. And probably the program he's most familiar with. I think the other programmers will shut up once BGN announces an open cycle for the next Man vs. Machine. As usual, I urge you to do it sooner rather than later, especially since it will keep the rabble quiet. My own stock answer to any questions is that I wasn't part of the process, understand the need for speed, remind people that Kramnik was chosen directly, and that I am helping to construct an open cycle which will hopefully be seen in the future. It seems to be a very good answer, and worked well for Kasparov-Kramnik.

I certainly will defer to Enrique in the technical areas. I see only one or two tricky spots. The first concerns access to opening materials. If the machine can use (lt. read) an opening book while it plays, the human should, arguably, have the same right. I doubt the computer side will go for this, as traditionally (e.g., Aegon, Deep Blue) the human had to rely on memory. The other area of discussion concerns consequences for mechanical breakdown and human intervention. But I think that is a matter of details that can be worked out.

Endgame databases are part of the program, but here an argument can be made that the computer could itself trivially construct the materials, that is, write the book itself. So no controversy there.

I mention the opening question to you alone because I want to suggest a modus operandi for constructing the rules. Fritz has played humans so often that they can just submit what they think is fair, and Kramnik can be consulted (via Miguel) on just the major items. Then Enrique and I can prepare the detailed document which each side can comment on.

There are complicated issues in draw offers and such but I am sure Enrique already has those solved from experience.

To insure against Kasparovian claims, a second machine should be configured to reproduce the moves. I believe Enrique did this in Cadaques, so no problem there.

I only wish that I had a female friend to bring along, but nothing solid at the moment. Still, October is a long way away...

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I'm sure I can come up with them. But if Friedel is involved, shouldn't a Kramnik representative be involved too? Or better to leave both out? I can do conferences by Internet but that might not work well with you and Enrique who have phone connections. Perhaps easiest just to email drafts. I'm sure there must be existing rules (Aegon, for example) that we could look at as a

start. Or maybe Friedel can send some. However, most rules apply to exhibitions, and this is a real contest, so a fresh look is needed at some issues.

9 May 2001

From Miguel Illescas To: Raymond Keene

Thanks for your email Raymond.

I spoke with Vladimir and he asked me to cooperate with Fred and BGN to work out the final version of the rules for the match. I already started contact with Fred.

Best regards,

Miguel Illescas

From: Eric Schiller To: Miguel Illescas

Thanks.

There are some general issues I'd like to get your feeling on. One is the use of opening books by the computer, how they can be modified in the course of the match, whether the human has the right to consult opening materials, etc. May the program use materials not commercially available or must it play as a representative of a commercial product?

The other, which I'm sure you've already been thinking about, is the allowable intervention of humans under any circumstances, including power outages (in California we are all too familiar with them these days), security matters requiring clearing the hall, etc.

Enrique is of course the computer specialist so I expect he has a lot to say on the many technical details. I know he and Fred get along very well, but I have had a much cooler relationship with ChessBase folks so I think you can rest assured that the arbiters are balanced.

Just so you know, I am in the process of finishing development on a commercial chess program, but it is aimed exclusively at amateurs and is in no way competitive with high-end chess products. And the engine we are using is not related to anything commercially available. Fritz and Junior are the two programs I use at home in my own work. (My objections to the Cadaques format were entirely due to the limitation on competitors, I fully expected F or J to win any fair competition at the moment. I just don't like the kind of attacks pouring in now, and preferred to keep my head down.)

So, are you and Fred planning to work out an agreement which Enrique and I can codify, or are you meeting to determine which issues must be sorted out before an agreement on rules can be made?

11 May 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

glad to see the ball is rolling-where rules impact on stage design pls keep me informed-I will get the set designer to be in touch with you all!

15 May 2001

From Enrique Irazoqui To: Eric Schiller

Sorry for the delay, I have been in Barcelona for almost a week.

Before setting the rules, I think we should know the agreements reached by Illescas and Friedel. For instance, it is likely that endgame tablebases are of no concern to the Kramnik team. After all, it is a match man vs. machine, and not man-machine vs machine. Same for the opening books.

Eventual machine failure during the game is, I think, a major issue: what to do in this case, will we have a spare twin machine in Bahrain and technicians to take care of them.

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

Hello Eric,

attached you will find the agreements between BGN and Kramnik, which are in the contract signed by both.

I will answer you the rest of the points:

1. Opening books: clause 9.2 of the contract states that no alterations are allowed once the match starts so the opening book should remain the same for the whole match.

2. Human intervention: clause 9.2 (only allowed in case of technical problems as you mention: power outages, etc...)

Best regards,

Mike

{ATTACHMENT}

2.1 Mr Kramnik shall be entitled to view, make copies of and/or make notes of no less than 40 games between the Program in identical form to that which is to be used to contest the Computer Challenge and Chess grand masters prior to 31 July 2001, and 10 games each month thereafter expiring 30 September 2001 (such chess grand masters to be agreed between the parties)("Grand Masters' Games").

2.2 Braingames shall keep confidential, and shall procure that the grand masters referred to in clause 2.1 above shall keep confidential, the results and moves of the Grand Masters' Games and shall make available to Mr Kramnik exclusively (save for the Sponsors) details of such results and moves upon his reasonable request.

2.3 The final match version of the Program shall be made available to Mr Kramnik by no later than the end of July 2001.

9. RULES OF THE COMPUTER CHALLENGE

9.1 The Arbiters subject to the prior written approval of Mr Kramnik (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)shall establish the rules for the Computer Challenge based on the basic principles set out in Schedule 1.

9.2 Braingames shall ensure that no alteration to the Program and no human contact with the Computer (save for technical problems in which case any repair work shall be supervised by the computer specialist Arbiter) is made during the Computer Challenge and shall procure that other parties with whom Braingames enters in to an agreement in connection with the Computer Challenge shall covenant in the same terms.

Schedule 1

Computer Challenge _ Basic Principles

1. Eight games will be played on 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28 and 30 October 2001, commencing at 3.00 pm and ending at 9.00 pm at which time Mr Kramnik will have the right either to

continue with the game or to adjourn it to the next day. Prize giving will take place on 1 November 2001. At the end of every game a print out of the Computer entries of such game will be provided to Mr Kramnik.

2. The match regulations and rules of the match shall include rules covering opening books ending book use and rules.

3. In each game the Players shall have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter provided that in the event that a game has not been completed within six hours it may be adjourned to the following day at Mr Kramnik's discretion when play will continue at the rate of 16 moves per hour for a further six hours. At the end of that day Mr Kramnik will again have the right either to continue with the game or to adjourn to the next day.

4. Mr Kramnik shall have the right to adjourn any game after 56 moves. Should this right be exercised, play shall continue on the following rest day at the rate of 16 moves per hour.

5. A draw offering and accepting method shall be agreed between the parties.

6. The winner of the Computer Challenge will be the first Player to score more than 4 points.

7. In the event that the Computer Challenge is decided before the eight games set out in paragraph 1 above have been played, Mr Kramnik will continue to play until the conclusion of the eighth game or offer his services to Braingames in any way agreeable to both parties.

8. The Computer Challenge will be ruled and officiated by the Arbiters. Their decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to the Computer Challenge and the Rules shall, in the case of a dispute between Mr Kramnik and the Arbiters which cannot be resolved on the same day, be referred to an Appeals Committee established by agreement between the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding.

{ATTACHMENT ENDS}

From: James Pryor To: All

Dear Sirs I would like to introduce myself as I feel that we will be talking to each other quite a lot over the next few months. My name is James Pryor and I will be responsible for the Presentation and Logistics side of the event. I understand from Ray Keene that you are the team working on the rules and regs of the tournament. Whilst I will by no means be interfering with any of the rules, I have some ideas that I would like to introduce insofar as the presentation of the event goes. I will be looking at ideas such as stage designs, room allocations, a commercial exhibition, technical designs (video, sound and lighting), VIP handling + hospitality etc etc. Would you all be so kind as to put your thoughts down on paper on how you would like to see the event managed and presented. Any ideas, however small, will be put on the table at our next planning meeting. Your help and input will be much appreciated. Kindest regards

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

Thanks for the note. Did you visit the Kasparov-Kramnik match, and have you been briefed on the logistics, rules and security arrangements of that event? That would be a good place to

start.

VIP handling is something I've been somewhat involved in as press officer for previous, with Ray it is usually as lavish as budget allows, and I expect he'll weigh in on that one. Some coordination with press officer may be needed. The hospitality room and press room are often located as far apart as possible.

Generally, however, technical details are specified in match regulations and generally follow FIDE's suggestions. Lighting is the trickiest bit, you don't want any shadows or glare on the board or pieces.

Of course the whole idea of a match with only on participant on stages changes much, and I'll try to think of the consequences.

Just some preliminary thoughts, I'll keep in touch as we develop the regs. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Eric Schiller

From: Eric Schiller

I received the technical document from Miguel today. Looks quite reasonable.

Enrique, how would you like to proceed? Would you like me to draft a set of rules based on the docs, or would you like to do so?

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

I attach a PDF of my latest book, which contains the BGN match regulations in the back. That may help.

Please keep in mind that we must set up an environment which is not too strange for the human (Kramnik). It would be nice if the staging didn't leave him looking like a wandering asteroid engulfed by a stage. Presenting a comfortable environment is certainly a challenge! I think that Ray is inclined more toward opulence than stark utility, and I am too.

One key point is the draw lamp. If the human offers a draw (or the machine) a sign must be illuminated, activated by the player. It was an ugly naked light bulb in October, rigged at the last moment, but worked. There is no existing hardware, so design can be incorporated into the set. We just need each side to be able to activate an indicator which will be seen by the public, players, arbiters and press.

The London set was nice until they screwed it up with slap-on ads. I'm all for commercialization (despite my hippy background, see www.chessworks.com/schiller/schiller.htm for more than anyone needs to know about me) but good taste really should reign.

Remember that Vlad is the tallest World Champion ever, scale accordingly!

For some sights from last year, see www.chesscity.com in the FUN section. I have a fair number of photos there.

You'll notice I focus more on the human element. I have little experience with computer events (at least in chess) so Enrique will have to provide information.

I'll send ideas as they come, but let me know what technology you have. I use generic MS Office 2000, do layouts in Visio 2000, but do the whole Adobe line and can provide information in any form you like.

Have you seen the Bahrain site, or do you have any room layouts or diagrams?

You might want to pick up a copy of Stewart Reuben's little orange Chess Organiser's Handbook, for technical aspects re lighting, tables so on.

16 May 2001

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Dear Eric I've just this minute returned from my meeting with Ray. I think that we covered most issues. Just so you know where I am coming from, I thought it would be helpful if I run the `draft' programme by you and you can comment as and when. Opening ceremony on the 12th. game 1 on the 14th and every second day up to game 4 (20th), then rest days (21st, 22nd,

23rd). Game 5 on the 24th and every second day to the final game (30th). Prize giving on the 1st Nov. There will be a press conference after each game (15mins) in the press area. We hope to have a conference titled `the origins of Arabian Chess' during the tournament. This will be in the form of set speeches by `Chess Names' and also involve workshops / discussion groups. Details are a bit thin at the moment but it is food for thought. maybe you have some suggestions. We were thinking of inviting Dr. Finkel from the British Museum to give a talk (and maybe bring a couple of interesting ancient chess pieces with him).....more details to follow. We are thinking of having a commercial exhibition where local companies as well as international companies will have stands to exhibit their products / services. We plan to have this in the main foyer....It will add a buzz to the event (not to mention the commercial returns). We will have a fully functional media area equipped with work stations, press office, catering point, telephone lines, press conference set, monitors, bar(?) etc etc. We will have a production / organizers office where the likes of you, ray, myself and the other `functional' people will have access to computers, faxes, telephones, work stations, food etc etc. Kramnik will have a `rest' room backstage with a monitor, refreshments, access to toilets....and all the other bits (the Kramnik team will no doubt let us know) The VIP hospitality suite will have food and drink, monitors....and all the other bits that we agree on. There will a technical control room where all the technical wizards and equipment will be based...i.e. editing suite, sound control and distribution, lighting control, website management team. There will also be a room set aside for Fritz and co. We are awaiting details on their requirements. Eric, I have been asked to ask you to look at a design of an `Official Score Sheet'. We also need to look at `Sealed Move Envelopes'....please give it some thought and let me know. There are ongoing discussions re: the website, transmission, broadcasting, filming etc etc. I am trying to put together a list of officials. I have most names of the Match Director, Arbiters, Match Committee, Commentators but if you think of anyone that will be part of the team (that may not be obvious at this stage) please let me know. Well, this is a start. I have some funky but sober ideas as to the stage set and general surrounds but will give you more details when I have visited the venue which I hope will be later this month. Until then, it is difficult to visualize how it will look. At the moment, I am looking at what I cannot do rather that what we will do. Speak anon

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

Thanks for all the information. I'll touch up the scoresheet, just need the official name of the event. Computers should be equipped with MS Office (Professional or Premium) 2000, not XP. I'll work up adjournment envelopes, should be no problem. Send me any logos or artwork BGN plans for the event so I can keep the look consistent.

I may have some comments on website but that depends on the overall website arrangements. Most of my technology is closely held, especially the automatic chess commentary translation. But I can comment on more general matters. After all the arrangements are made I'll see what I can contribute.

The conference sounds interesting, though at times Ray does overestimate interest in historical matters. All his stuff about Howard Staunton on the BGN match was pretty much ignored. As a linguist of course I'd be interested in hearing about the development of chess terms, but unless it has outside sponsorship I'd have to say it is largely a waste, though in a good cause. A more technically oriented computer conference would likely be a better fit.

17 May 2001

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Eric Thanks for that. They haven't agreed on a name of the event yet although it should be sorted out by time we go to Bahrain at the end of the month. We are still open to ideas on the logo - I think it should include the Bahrain colors (red and white), probably include the BGN logo and have a strapline (slogan) of sorts. If you have any ideas, I would like to hear them.

<PR discussion deleted>

Another question - how far should the first row of seats be away from the playing table (10 meters / 33 feet?). This will help me when I see the room to visualize how many seats we will

be able to have.

<website discussion deleted>

I also think that a more `techno / computer symposium' would be more suited to the occasion. As a matter of interest, are you happy for us to firm up the start time for the matches at 15:00 or should we be looking at 16:00 or even 17:00.

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

No, you don't want to see my logo work. I am a horrible artist! But my events always have logos, sometimes professionally designed, because, well, you know that logos are important means of communications. I tend to think these days more in terms of questions such as production of shirts and caps and the clarity of the logo, rather than the aesthetics. One idea is sequence of about 6 glyphs, 3 of mankind (ape-Neanderthal-homo sap and three machines wheel-car-computer with the most advanced meeting in the middle in conflict.). Well, you were warned about my ideas on art! 

20 would surprise me, more would amaze me. Bahrain is in the middle of nowhere, chess-wise, and a very expensive travel destination. The "usual gang of idiots" peaked in 1986 (719 accredited journalists) and I don't think there were more than a few dozen even in London. And although Bahrain is reportedly a nice place to relax, it is not a *destination*.

<Media discussion deleted>

Another question - how far should the first row of seats be away from the playing table (10 meters / 33 feet?). This will help me when I see the room to visualize how many seats we will be able to have.

There was a big distance in London, but here I see less of a problem. I should ask Vladimir about his preferences, but 10 meters sounds good to me. 

As a matter of interest, are you happy for us to firm up the start time for the matches at 15:00 or should we be looking at 16:00 or even 17:00.

It is firm at 15.00 in my notes from the two camps, and that is best. Otherwise dinner is very late. The timing is bad for USA in any case. Games will begin early in the morning. Perhaps the website could offer a 1-hour summary/replay of each game during USA evening hours?

18 May 2001

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Eric Thanks for the info yesterday.

{Travel discussion deleted}

Another question - Do you think that the Fritz team will need a secure room to tinker with their programme in the `down times' ....will this be allowed. will be meeting with the team next weekend when we all go out to Bahrain but thought it would be a good idea to get your view beforehand. Also, is there anything that you would like to see in the handbook brochure. Last years one was OK and we probably won't change too much but would like to add a few more bits to it. {VIP treatment deleted}

{PR discussion deleted}

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

This has to be discussed with the various parties, but my gut instinct says no, they can't touch the machine unless under observation from an arbiter. We'll see what policy shakes out. They cannot alter the program once the match starts. I do think we will need a 24-hour security person to watch the machine.

27 May 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Haven't heard a peep from anyone in a week. What's up?

28 May 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

we have been in Bahrain Jim prior is very appreciative of your input so far and he returns tomorrow-the playing hall is a fab Aladdin's cave with giant Persian carpets and huge Arab lamps!

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Sounds good! Photos? You guys are supposed to carry digital cameras to site inspections!

Nothing whatsoever on rules from Enrique. I assume Miguel wants to wait until the Kazakhstan event ends.

Are you still up for a meeting in Dortmund? I have to make travel plans. If not, do you want me stopping in London on one end or the other?

Mostly from Jim I am awaiting word on a possible Kramnik USA promotional visit. I guess that does need to be decided, as TV spots are very hard to book here and things have to be lined up soon. There are 1 or 2 major shows that have shorter deadlines, but they aren't the biggest.

As things develop, let me know your website plans. I am continuing to work on my commentary software, which will be used in any case by another client and in my new chess program.

30 May 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

You noticed perhaps the State Department warning on terrorism in Bahrain against US Military? Hope there is nothing to it. Just saw it on CNN.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

saw no evidence -place v relaxed over weekend while I was there three days ago

6 June 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I've still heard nothing from anyone. Should I be doing something on the rules? No word from Enrique. Any updates on the candidates or cycle?

<irrelevant stuff deleted>

13 June 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Still waiting on Enrique for rules to be moving (I copied you on my latest to him). Haven't heard from him in ages.

<irrelevant stuff deleted>

15 June 2001

<No correspondence except John Henderson to Ray Keene on Press Facilities>

21 June 2001

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Hey Eric Sorry I haven't written for a while.

<personal stuff deleted>

The trip to Bahrain was a good one. It is also evident that we need to pull our fingers out pretty quickly. I had the pleasure of meeting Fredric Friedel (Fritz man) and our in-country hosts. It also gave me a chance to get to know Ray a little bit more. <PR discussion deleted>

The venue is now a marquee attached to the le Royal Meridien Hotel, a 5 star deluxe resort. The original venue (meeting rooms within the hotel itself) had been booked out over the best part of October. The long and short of it is that it is OK but not ideal. I will have to do a bit of work to create a world class chess tournament venue. Basically it is a large tent (about 50m x 100m) and that is it. It has toilet facilities and a basic power supply. I am not sure why they are insisting on the Meridien as there are equally good hotels down town. (I think it is the Bahrain government who want to impress!!!!). We will need to construct a number of `walls' to section of the press area, VIP room, match room etc etc. The air con is going to be a big time must as it is really hot out there and you can imagine what a tent feels like. It has an existing stage of sorts but I feels we will need to make it slightly larger to accommodate the match table. We will be having two large screens on either side that will relay the match (live pictures and graphics).I reckon we can fit approx 120 seats in the `match room' which I believe, the Bahrainis will be able to fill on match days. We will have the usual bits in the VIP room. The press area will have 20 work stations (power, desk space, tel. lines etc) with free catering and also large screens with commentary. We will also build a press set for the usual after match press conferences. I plan to construct a `technical area/room' which will house the web management team, the broadcasting / filming editing units, graphics generation etc etc. This will have direct links to the outside carpark where we intend putting the broadcast vehicles (sat trucks, OB vehicles). Last but not least, we will have an `organizers office' where we can send and receive faxes, emails, tel calls and generally do our office work. Insofar as the programme goes, the dates and times are the same and have been agreed. Looks like the Kramnik team will be there a week before hand with the Fritz team arriving three days before. Some has cocked up the budget allocation (before my time) and we are low on funds for set building, technical gizmos etc etc but we have been assured that sponsorship will cover most bits. It is a bit frustrating for me as I don't know how much I can spend therefore making it near on impossible to say exactly what type of equipment we will be having....but it will all work at the end of the day.

<irrelevant material deleted>

18 July 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

<website comments deleted>

I've heard nothing from anyone for a long time. As far as I know, the only thing I'm supposed to be doing is polishing the rules, and since I haven't heard from Enrique despite several emails, I figure I'll just keep working, deliver to you when I visit in August, and you can take it from there.

<irrelevant material deleted>

So my calendar for 2002 is pretty clear after March. Will you want me in Dortmund in July?

29 July 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I am just back from Beijing-will catch up soon ray

2 August 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

Eric

BGN decided this afternoon that we need a rules supremo-title to be

confirmed-who will publish rules for chess and possibly all our games on our

website-including all applications-basic rules -qualifying rules rating rules

——ad infinitum

there will be a fee and you are the obvious choice-pls contact don Morris my

BGN co founder and start a dialogue presuming that you wd

like to be the BGN rules supremo!

thanks a lot

5 August 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: All

august 10-18 I shall be in Las Brisas, Acapulco , Mexico so quite hard to contact by email-if any such cd wait till my return during that period I wd be grateful!

thanks

22 August 2001

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi,

Miguel and I discussed rules yesterday. Miguel convinced me that it doesn't look good if we have the possibility of inputting huge amounts of fresh grandmaster analysis between games. A chess match shouldn't be run that way, no matter whether man or machine team. So we agreed that our changes to the opening book should be limited to a few moves (number still disputed but minor problem) each game and the setting of the move weights.

There is one Catch 22 which we cannot solve between us:

Kramnik wants the final engine by Sep 10. However we haven't been able to test it on the target machine yet.

Many-processor-parallelization is highly non-trivial and there are a couple of adjustments we have to make in the engine code which depend on the machine parameters. Otherwise the parallelization efficiency could backfire in many positions. The highest number of processors on which we tested this version is two.

Regarding chess knowledge Vladimir and Miguel already have more or less the final engine version by now. But the search technique has to be tested and adjusted on the exact machine which plays the match. We could do that in Bahrain, one or two days should be enough. But this means that we have to compile and submit another engine there.

Matthias

From: Miguel Illescas To: Matthias Wüllenweber

In my opinion it is very important to preserve the essence of the match: Man v Machine, not Team v Team; that is why we don't want to enter a theoretical opening battle which could be very tiring and demanding for both sides (I still have nightmares with the Berlin Wall!!).

I said that I will try to convince Vladimir to accept that ChessBase is allowed to select which opening to play after every game (to change weight of moves on the opening book) and also to add some moves as well (I think around 10 moves after every game should be enough, and I tell you I am already on the maximum I can give). This is the most problematic issue and in this way the path is free to close a deal. But in exchange I am going to need some compromise from ChessBase and BGN:

1. Final version of the program should be in my power (and the arbiters) no later than 10th of September, without excuses. I expect Kramnik to arrive to Barcelona on the 9th so I need to have everything clear by that date. 2. I need a compromise from ChessBase that you will help me to install Deep Fritz in a multi-processor machine that I will get in Barcelona or Paris for our training, including if necessary that you send a technician to Barcelona or Paris: this may happen the week of 10th of September. 3. Also I need from BGN and Bahrain a clear compromise to satisfy the invoice for the GM training games no later than 3rd of September. 4. The final rules for the match should be officially approved by the arbiters, Technical Director and both sides in writing no later than 7th of September. Of course some amendments or improvements can be approved later if both sides agree. 5. Acceptance before Friday this week of the rest of the points included in the attached document (the same I sent some weeks ago, I think everything is more or less agreed with ChessBase).

In the rules we should include a satisfactory system to check the openings book agreement. I suggest that after every game Enrique Irazoqui and Eric Schiller should be allowed to check the opening played that day and compare the actual book with the book of the previous day on that particular variation, this could be done in presence of a ChessBase technician. After the match I should be allowed to check all 8 books, but only the variations that were played on the match.

I attach the document and I expect to have a positive reply to this email ASAP.

I can't go further, this is a kind of best offer: if ChessBase and BGN can compromise about this five points then I am almost certain that we have a deal.

Best regards,

{ATTACHMENT BEGINS}

BAHRAIN MEN v MACHINE

VLADIMIR KRAMNIK v DEEP FRITZ 7

TECHNICAL RULES FOR THE MATCH

THIS PROPOSAL HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE PROPOSAL.

GENERAL RULES

8 GAMES

40 MOVES IN 2 HOURS + 16 MOVES PER HOUR

FIRST PLAYING SESSION OF A MAXIMUM OF SIX HOURS OR 56 MOVES

ADJOURNAMENT SESSION OF 4 HOURS WITH A BREAK OF TWO HOURS AFTER THE FIRST TWO HOURS OF PLAY

SUBSEQUENT ADJOURNEMENTS (AFTER MOVE 88) TO PLAY ON THE NEXT FREE DAYS

RULES FOR PLAY

1. THE OPERATOR WILL REFRAIN OF ANY ACTIVITY WHILE KRAMNIK'S CLOCK IS RUNNING.

2. IF THE OPERATOR WISHES TO ADJUST THE CLOCKS HE MAY DO IT IN THE FIRST 15 SECONDS AFTER KRAMNIK PUSHES THE CLOCK.

3. THE OPERATOR MAY BE REPLACED IF HE FEELS SICK. THERE WILL EXIST A PREDEFINED LIST OF POSSIBLE OPERATORS.

RULES FOR ADJOURNAMENTS

1. AS A GENERAL RULE FRITZ ALWAYS PLAYS ON

2. KRAMNIK MAY ADJOURN ANY TIME AFTER 56 MOVES

3. A MOVE HAS TO BE SEALED, KRAMNIK WILL CHOOSE WHICH SIDE SEALS THE MOVE

SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE FAILURE

1. IN GENERAL WE BELIEVE THAT IF THE MACHINE FAILS IT MAY LOSE THE GAME SINCE WE ARE AGAINST HUMAN INTERVENTION DURING THE MATCH BUT IN ORDER TO BE FLEXIBLE WE MAY ACCEPT POINT 2.

2. IN CASE OF A MACHINE'S FAILURE THE CLOCK WILL BE STOPPED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THE MACHINE'S TEAM WILL DECIDE IF THEY TRY TO REPARE IT OR REPLACE IT. AFTER THIS FIVE MINUTES THE CLOCK WILL BE RUNNING AGAIN.

OPENING'S BOOK

1. THE MACHINE'S TEAM MAY PREPARE A SPECIFIC OPENING'S PREPARATION FOR THE MATCH.

2. ONCE THE MATCH STARTS THE BOOK HAS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED: NO HUMAN INTERVENTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED DURING THE MATCH

ENDGAME TABLEBASES

IN GENERAL WE ARE AGAINST THE USE OF THE TABLEBASES

IF A GLOBAL AGREEMENT IS POSSIBLE WE MAY ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

1. THE USE OF A MAXIMUM OF FIVE PIECES TABLEBASES WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CD'S WITH ALL FINAL TABLEBASES HAVE TO BE PROVIDED TO KRAMNIK WITH THE LAST VERSION OF THE PROGRAM.

2. WHEN REACHING A POSITION INCLUDED IN THE TABLEBASES:

a. IF THE GAME IS WINNING FOR FRITZ THE OPERATOR HAS TO INFORM KRAMNIK WHO WILL DECIDE IF HE RESIGNS OR KEEPS ON PLAYING

b. IF THE GAME IS A DRAW THE OPERATOR HAS TO INFORM KRAMNIK ABOUT THIS FACT, OFFERING A DRAW AT THE SAME TIME. KRAMNIK WILL DECIDE IF HE ACCEPTS THE DRAW OR KEEPS ON PLAYING

c. IF THE GAME IS LOST FOR FRITZ NO ACTION IS REQUIRED AND THE GAME CONTINUES IN A NORMAL WAY.

DRAW OFFERS

1. THE OPERATOR MAY NOT OFFER A DRAW UNLESS A PREVIOUS DRAW OFFER BY KRAMNIK HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REJECTED.

2. KRAMNIK MAY OFFER A DRAW AT ANY TIME. IN THIS CASE THE OPERATOR MAY ACCEPT OR DECLINE THE PROPOSAL.

3. IF THE GAME IS A CLEAR DRAW KRAMNIK MAY PROPOSE A DRAW TO THE OPERATOR WHO MAY LISTEN TO KRAMNIK'S ARGUMENT. THE OPERATOR MAY ONLY REFUSE IF THE MACHINE IS MAKING SOME PROGRESS IN THE LAST 10 MOVES, IT MEANS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ON ITS EVALUATION.

DELIVERY DATE FOR THE SOFTWARE

IN KRAMNIK'S CONTRACT IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE DELIVERED BY THE END OF JULY. AS A PART OF THIS GLOBAL AGREEMENT, AND ATTENDING YOUR DEMANDS WE ARE READY TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:

1^ST OF AUGUST KRAMNIK WILL RECEIVE CURRENT VERSION OF DEEP FRITZ7

20^TH OF AUGUST KRAMNIK WILL RECEIVE VERSION OF DEEP FRITZ7 WHICH WILL COMPETE IN THE COMPUTER WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

10^TH OF SEPTEMBER KRAMNIK AND THE TECHNICAL ARBITER WILL RECEIVE LAST AND FINAL VERSION OF DEEP FRITZ7

KRAMNIK'S TEAM WILL MAKE INTENSIVE TESTING OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS. IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BETWEEN VERSIONS THEY MAY COMPLAIN TO THE TECHNICAL ARBITER WHO WILL TAKE A DECISSION ABOUT WHICH VERSION TO USE.

{ATTACHMENT ENDS}

From: Raymond Keene To: All

as far as I am concerned I am happy with all of this. David Massey will confirm officially from BGN standpoint.

23 August 2001

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Miguel Illescas

Hi Mike,

> I said that I will try to convince Vladimir to accept that ChessBase

> is allowed to select which opening to play after every game (to change

> weight of moves on the opening book) and also to add some moves as

> well (I think around 10 moves after every game should be enough, and I

> tell you I am already on the maximum I can give). This is the most

> problematic issue and in this way the path is free to close a deal.

> But in exchange I am going to need some compromise from ChessBase and

> BGN:

Ok.

> 1. Final version of the program should be in my power (and the

> arbiters) no

> later than 10th of September, without excuses. I expect Kramnik to

> arrive to Barcelona on the 9th so I need to have everything clear by

> that date.

We can work with that. Now somebody has to take a decision for the scenario:

The engine doesn't run efficiently and/or bug free on the original match hardware (those big servers are bizarre machines) and we find that out only after September 10 because the machine might not be available before. The alternatives are:

a) Crash our way through the games/Play with a handicapped engine.

b) Play on a small machine.

c) Fix the problem.

> 2. I need a compromise from ChessBase that you will help me to install

> Deep Fritz in a multi-processor machine that I will get in Barcelona

> or Paris for

> our training, including if necessary that you send a technician

> to Barcelona

> or Paris: this may happen the week of 10th of September.

We will help to solve all problems to your satisfaction.

> 4. The final rules for the match should be officially approved by the

> arbiters, Technical Director and both sides in writing no later than

> 7th of September. Of course some amendments or improvements can be

> approved later if

> both sides agree.

> 5. Acceptance before Friday this week of the rest of the points

> included in

> the attached document (the same I sent some weeks ago, I think

> everything is

> more or less agreed with ChessBase).

Looks ok. `Progress' (Draw offers) should not be defined by `evaluation', the program might sac a pawn with oscillating evaluations to make progress.

From: David Massey To: All

Do I conclude correctly from this email that we have an agreement?

If so, can both Miguel and Matthias please confirm this to me (David Massey at BGN) so we can write up the agreement formally?

Thank you,

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Matthias,

After you all work out the details, I'll put those aspects relevant to the rules into writing. I'm quite pleased that you and Miguel have been able to work out so many of the complicated details. The agreed terms are both impressive and creative.

I'm setting up a dual processor machine next week to get some experience with them. I'm not sure what OS you will be running on, but my new machine is mostly a WindowsXP testbed and used for XML database development. But at least I will have some experience seeing how the dual-processor versions play compared to the single processor versions I use now.

Hope all is well, see you in Bahrain!

25 August 2001

From: Miguel Illescas To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Hi everyone,

Vladimir agreed with this proposal as far as all the points are fulfilled in time. I believe the arbiters may start working out the final rules. Please, Matthias, I remind you that the engine you sent me doesn't seem to work properly.

Best regards,

28 August 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: All

I have been working all of the details into a coherent document, which should be ready soon. I have a few questions that might be answerable at this point. This message is going to Ray, Enrique, Matthias and Miguel only, as I want to keep this line of communication clean. My plan is to send the draft document to you four, get your feedback, and then circulate to all necessary parties. If you'd prefer some other way, just let me know,

1. Suppose a game starts late, or is interrupted for any reason. Do the adjournments get pushed back too? That is, we have playing sessions scheduled for 3-5 PM and 7-9 PM, but if the game doesn't get adjourned until 5:30 (and is sealing time included?) then do we resume at 7:00 or 7:30? I also assume earlier games takes precedence for resumption over later ones.

2. Two of the deadlines are past, involving delivery of the software to Kramnik. Has this now been accomplished? In any case, the rules at this point only mention the September 10th.

3. The operating system on which the machine will play should be part of the rules. So should the range of hardware. It would probably be easiest to specify upper boundaries only. For

example, suppose the Fritz Team discovers that Windows XP adds a lot of strength for some reason. It doesn't get released until late in the match, but is available in Beta now. I think it is generally agreed that the hardware will be the best you can come up with. We could just leave the issue out, or something like the following limits: X number of CPUs, 2.5 GigHz processor, 8 Gig RAM, 300 MHz bus, ... Whether or not Kramnik can get hold of a machine similar to the one used by the Fritz Team, it seems fair to know what one might be up against. Enrique is more of an expert here, I'm just tossing high-end numbers as examples. My notes show agreements on alterations of the hardware, but not on limitations, if any. I realize Fritz won't have the machine for a bit, so there is no need to nail down specific numbers.

4.I''ve used the terms Fritz, Mr. Kramnik, Fritz Team and Kramnik Team in the document. If there are any objections (last match the term "delegation" was considered undesirable. I don't have a term for those persons assisting Fritz in a purely technical capacity, including operators, and the draft at present uses the local slang "wetware" (From Rudy Rucker's novel of that name, forming part of a hardware-software-wetware continuum) but I will try to come up with something more dignified before I send it out. Any ideas? (I know, it's my job to do the linguistics, but you can help!)

5. May I change "operator may be replaced if he feels sick" with "...if he becomes unavailable for an extended..." or something like that? I presume that the operator is permitted to go to the toilet, but cannot be replaced during that interval (any more than the human under such circumstances), but there are many possibilities of situations where the operator may be required to leave the scene (family crisis, police investigation, or just passing out, where if cannot be said that he "feels" sick or anything else.)

6. The term machine failure must be defined. There is a difference between, say, an accidental reboot or crash, and a fried CPU. Suppose it is just monitor screen flicker, is that machine failure? How about this: In the event of an obvious machine failure the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the clock will resume. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play (repair may require some time). The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game. In the event a member of the Fritz Team has reason to believe that machine failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped.

7. Opening book. I know this is a tough one. Having read your materials, my suggestion is this, on the assumption that you want Fritz to be able to choose a different opening or tweak the opening just played, but not add new preparation in lines not played in the game:

After each game, the Fritz Team may adjust the weighting of the opening book to prefer a different variation among those in the book at the start of the match

After each game, the Fritz Team may add up to ten moves (20 ply or 10 ply) in the opening variation played in the game just completed

8. Regarding the tablebases, another tough one, I'm using the compromise suggested by Miguel.

9. Dress code same as before, and does it apply to Fritz Team?

10. I take it we impose no IOC testing and that Mr. Kramnik is free to enjoy the same range of refreshment as in London. Will there be a similar area for the Fritz Operator? Team?

11. Same photography rules as in London? Post game press conferences, etc?

12. Ray, please send me a list of all official functions and who is required to be at each.

13. For the sealed move, let's consider making it a little more classy than stuffing envelopes. I suggest a nice Arabian locked box. The sealed move will be written down, and placed in the box by Kramnik or the Operator. It is then locked with a key, one arbiter keeps the box, the other keeps the key. This will at least give the fatigued audience something to look at while requiring less paperwork. While one arbiter supervises the sealing, the other will record the position and times (even though we have it electronically).

14. Subject to technology, I suggest that a display show all draw offers and resolutions. This way the Operator doesn't have to remember if a draw was offered, and keeps the people informed. Similarly, display technology should include the following messages: White/Black is sealing a move. White/Black has offered/declined a draw.

There will be other issues, for sure, but this list will get me to the point where I can send out a draft. As usual, I remind you that I have cobbled it together from various emails and attachments, so there may be some horrible glaring errors. They are unintentional, and all you have to do is send me the corrections. We should have this wrapped up quickly, as once you get the draft it is a lot easier to make progress.

I'm getting a dual processor machine this week, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to send me the program, too. Especially if operating systems need to be tested. I'll have WindowsXP as the main OS, with Win2000 and Linux also on board. I've got broadband so I can download it, regardless of size.

From: Eric Schiller To: All

I've worked out some procedures for the rules that have already been discussed. There are only a few important questions:

1. If Kramnik claims a technical draw (a clearly drawn position), are the clocks stopped? If so, is there a penalty if the claim is rejected?

Suggest: During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, a penalty of 25% percent of Mr. Kramnik's remaining time will be assessed.

2. Technical draw offer should be made to an arbiter. Suggest:

If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress has been made.

The Arbiters will determine the validity of the claim, and their decision is subject to appeal by the Match Committee. Should the Arbiters uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If the Arbiters reject the claim, then the game continues.

3. Suggested Tablebase language, if that is agreed:

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

2. When Fritz identifies a position in a tablebase, it must inform an Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

3. In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.

4. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

5. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue.

6. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik's next move.

From: Eric Schiller To: All

This is the last message for now. Once I get replies to this and the previous two, I will send the draft document.

With regard to checking the opening books, I have put generic language in the doc. But I do have a specific idea: The arbiters are given a copy of the book as used in each game. We run a DIFF utility on the files. Fritz Team can then explain the discrepancies. In this way the Arbiters

do not have to obtain access to the general contents of the book. A more elaborate scheme would involve getting the format of the book, and writing some Perl code to output a report on differences. If it is a binary format, some conversion routine could provide a text or XML version that could be similarly automated so that only the changes would be displayed.

Of course if we have the opening books in some normal CB format we can check it by playing through the moves and comparing. That however means we have to have copies of the whole book.

So I guess that presents both a loose and tight security solution, and I'm happy with it either way. Enrique?

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I know that in the end the dress code will be determined by Mr. Penguin, so let me know what you think is appropriate for the rules and regs.

Once I hear from you, Miguel, Enrique and Matthias, the draft document will be ready in 24 hours or less. There were quite a few challenges, an interesting task!

Haven't heard more from Don re "rules guru" thing.

<irrelevant material deleted>

29 August 2001

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

Thanks Eric,

your emails are most useful. I will come back with my comments ASAP.

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric,

regarding your suggestion about the opening book: Its a dynamic hash file, that means that adding or deleting a single position can lead to a reorganization. So the elegant idea of DIFF'ing wouldn't work. You should look at the line played in the game directly. We might sit down on the machine together after the game and you check it and we answer your questions. With your theoretical background that should be the most natural approach.

About the tablebases:

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

That will not work for Fritz, it transpositionally accesses tablebases in the search for endgame evaluation also if more than five pieces are on the board. Modern chess engines now strongly rely on endgame knowledge in the form tablebases and the authors do not bother any more to implement endgame rules which are solved by tablebases. Mike and Vladimir are aware of this,

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

OK, I understand now. Enrique is the computer specialist, I didn't realize the opening books were dynamic. Your approach sounds fine and I'll just rewrite it in legalese.

On the endgame, I just need to know what was agreed. The note I have from Miguel said that they were against tablebases except for 5-piece. So I'll check with him too. Just need to find out what is agreed, then I'll word it appropriately.

Thanks for the quick reply!

30 August 2001

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric,

Miguel and I agreed that it is not allowed to use more than five-men tablebases. However we may access the five-men TB's transpositionally in the search. I am copying Mike on this, so he can comment,

From: Miguel Illescas To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Matthias is right, only one little thing:

the tablebases that are going to be stored on the hard disk during the match should be known in advance, at the same time that the last version of Fritz (in principle 10th of September). These tablebases may cover endgames with five pieces or less (including kings).

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Miguel Illescas

Yes, that's how I understood it, you have them already,

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

1. Suppose a game starts late, or is interrupted for any reason. Do the adjournments get pushed back too? That is, we have playing sessions scheduled for 3-5 PM and 7-9 PM, but if the game doesn't get adjourned until 5:30 (and is sealing time included?) then do we resume at 7:00 or 7:30? I also assume earlier games takes precedence for resumption over later ones.

I think that for the press and the public we should stick to some fix time-table but I would leave the door open for Kramnik to reach an agreement with the arbiters in every situation, it means to give the human player the choice to postpone a bit the resumption.

2. Two of the deadlines are past, involving delivery of the software to Kramnik. Has this now been accomplished? In any case, the rules at this point only mention the September 10th. 

I received some engine which looks quite provisional in my opinion :-) I was informed by Matthias that the hardware has to be selected before we can have a final version. Anyway I would like to have a kind of final version by 10th of September. If there are changes to be made because the hardware, of course that should be done, but without changing anything about the way the engine plays chess. Is it possible?

3. The operating system on which the machine will play should be part of the rules. So should the range of hardware. It would probably be easiest to specify upper boundaries only. For example, suppose the Fritz Team discovers that Windows XP adds a lot of strength for some reason. It doesn't get released until late in the match, but is available in Beta now. I think it is generally agreed that the hardware will be the best you can come up with. We could just leave the issue out, or something like the following limits: X number of CPUs, 2.5 GigHz processor, 8 Gig RAM, 300 MHz bus, ... Whether or not Kramnik can get hold of a machine similar to the one used by the Fritz Team, it seems fair to know what one might be up against. Enrique is more of an expert here, I'm just tossing high-end numbers as examples. My notes show agreements on alterations of the hardware, but not on limitations, if any. I realize Fritz won't have the machine for a bit, so there is no need to nail down specific numbers.

As far as I know the agreement is about an 8 Intel based processor machine with Deep Fritz 7 running on it. I don't think it is strictly necessary to establish any limitation about the rest of the hardware.

4. I've used the terms Fritz, Mr. Kramnik, Fritz Team and Kramnik Team in the document. If there are any objections (last match the term "delegation" was considered undesirable. I don't have a term for those persons assisting Fritz in a purely technical capacity, including operators, and the draft at present uses the local slang "wetware" (From Rudy Rucker's novel of that name, forming part of a hardware-software-wetware continuum) but I will try to come up with something more dignified before I send it out.

Any ideas? (I know, it's my job to do the linguistics, but you can help!) 

Mr. Kramnik and Kramnik Team is ok for us :-)

5. May I change "operator may be replaced if he feels sick" with "...if he becomes unavailable for an extended..." or something like that? I presume that the operator is permitted to go to the toilet, but cannot be replaced during that interval (any more than the human under such circumstances), but there are many possibilities of situations where the operator may be required to leave the scene (family crisis, police investigation, or just passing out, where if cannot be said that he "feels" sick or anything else.)

No problem, we only want to avoid Kramnik to be distracted because frequent operator changes.

6. The term machine failure must be defined. There is a difference between, say, an accidental reboot or crash, and a fried CPU. Suppose it is just monitor screen flicker, is that machine failure? How about this: In the event of an obvious machine failure the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the clock will resume. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play (repair may require some time). The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game. In the event a member of the Fritz Team has reason to believe that machine failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped. 

In my opinion the game has to go on while Fritz is able to play, doesn't matter if it plays well or bad. Technical failure should mean that for any reason Fritz is unable to produce the move. In this case the operator should ask the arbiter to stop the clocks. After 5 minutes there are two possibilities: 1.the problem is solved and the game goes on 2.They need more time to fix it, in this case Kramnik should have the choice to wait or postpone the game for the next day.

7. Opening book. I know this is a tough one. Having read your materials, my suggestion is this, on the assumption that you want Fritz to be able to choose a different opening or tweak the opening just played, but not add new preparation in lines not played in the game:

After each game, the Fritz Team may adjust the weighting of the opening book to prefer a different variation among those in the book at the start of the match

After each game, the Fritz Team may add up to ten moves (20 ply or 10 ply) in the opening variation played in the game just completed 

It is fine, I thought we were always talking about ply (10 ply).

8. Regarding the tablebases, another tough one, I'm using the compromise suggested by Miguel.

OK 

9. Dress code same as before, and does it apply to Fritz Team? 

Not girls naked, please :-) 

10. I take it we impose no IOC testing and that Mr. Kramnik is free to enjoy the same range of refreshment as in London. Will there be a similar area for the Fritz Operator? Team?

11. Same photography rules as in London? Post game press conferences, etc?

12. Ray, please send me a list of all official functions and who is required to be at each.

13. For the sealed move, let's consider making it a little more classy than stuffing envelopes. I suggest a nice Arabian locked box. The sealed move will be written down, and placed in the box by Kramnik or the Operator. It is then locked with a key, one arbiter keeps the box, the other keeps the key. This will at least give the fatigued audience something to look at while requiring less paperwork. While one arbiter supervises the sealing, the other will record the position and times (even though we have it electroni

cally).

Nice idea about the box!

Remember we agreed that it will be Kramnik's choice who is sealing the move. Also Kramnik may adjourn after 6 hours or 56 moves; in the second case no time will be added to any side, simply the playing session maybe shorter.

14. Subject to technology, I suggest that a display show all draw offers and resolutions. This way the Operator doesn't have to remember if a draw was offered, and keeps the people informed. Similarly, display technology should include the following messages: White/Black is sealing a move. White/Black has offered/declined a draw. 

OK, Maybe also that Kramnik is claiming a technical draw. 

There will be other issues, for sure, but this list will get me to the point where I can send out a draft. As usual, I remind you that I have cobbled it together from various emails and attachments, so there may be some horrible glaring errors. They are unintentional, and all you have to do is send me the corrections. We should have this wrapped up quickly, as once you get the draft it is a lot easier to make progress.

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

I answer each point.

1. If Kramnik claims a technical draw (a clearly drawn position), are the clocks stopped? If so, is there a penalty if the claim is rejected?

Suggest: During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, a penalty of 25% percent of Mr. Kramnik's remaining time will be assessed. 

I would suggest Kramnik may ask the arbiter to stop the clock to claim a technical draw. In the unlikely case that the claim is refused then Kramnik may get a penalty of 10% of his time, never more than five minutes. If a second claim is refused then it is ok a 25% penalty. 

2. Technical draw offer should be made to an arbiter. Suggest:

If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress has been made.

The Arbiters will determine the validity of the claim, and their decision is subject to appeal by the Match Committee. Should the Arbiters uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If the Arbiters reject the claim, then the game continues. 

OK 

3. Suggested Tablebase language, if that is agreed:

excellent redaction!

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

ok 

2. When Fritz identifies a position in a tablebase, it must inform an Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

ok 

3. In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.

ok 

4. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

ok 

5. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue .

ok 

6. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik's next move.

ok 

From: Eric Schiller To: Miguel Illescas

Thanks for all the answers. Everything looks fine. As soon as Matthias gets me his feedback, I'll send you the whole document. Some of it is just repeated from last time (toilet regs, playing conditions) and I'm sure many of those will change or be scrapped. 8 Processors, wow. No wonder they are going crazy trying to balance the loads. I'm getting a dual processor machine this weekend, will test on that. I'm laying down WindowsXP, but will adapt to whatever Matthias uses so I can familiarize myself with the program.

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

OK Eric, thanks for the good job. We are lucky to have you here :-)

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

Eric-pls don't send anything to Irazoqui-for some reason he has pulled out-I

am in process of appointing a new arbiter!

my proposal is as follows-Miguel and ChessBase have agreed a set of playing

rules-pls wait till you get these which David Massey should co-ordinate and

send to you-once you have the agreed parameters you can work on the rest!

Justin Ricketts will inform you of the functions and who needs to be where

and when-pls let me know if you need his email-assuming you have it pls put

that question to him!

thanks

From: Raymond Keene To: All

your feedback should include the agreed text which Miguel and ChessBase have

signed off between them-it is my hope that David Massey will coordinate

getting this to you!

thanks for your hard work so far

From: Raymond Keene To: All

pls stop sending copies to Irazoqui-thanks

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I can't say this bothers me. He never responded to much anyway. Why anyone would turn down this assignment is a puzzle to me, though. OK, I don't expect to have a splendid time in Bahrain (compared to my home turf) but it will be exciting and fun and important. I can't say I know anyone with qualifications, but maybe Friedel does. I don't expect any serious problems, so choose a diplomat above all. I may not be up to speed on computer chess, but at least I'm hardly an technophobe :-) Most important that Fritzers be happy with the choice, and that they are experienced with computer chess issues. If the match weren't so long, you could go for a big name like Ken Thompson but I don't see that as possible.

Again, I've been copied on most of the correspondence, and can't imagine that the current rules are off, though there is information about ceremonies and press conferences that I need.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

dress code-must be smart but this is Bahrain so I don't think we can include

jacket and tie-we must however exclude sneakers jeans t shirts for all staff

players and officials

From: Raymond Keene To: All

Irazoqui has sadly withdrawn as an arbiter so pls remove him from your

information loops- I am giving thought as to who should replace him

1 September 2001

{General discussion of what to do if one side wins before match ends, whether to do exhibitions or whatever. All deleted}

3 September 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Perhaps you can fill in some of the gaps re ceremonies and such.

{ATTACHMENT BEGINS}

Braingames.net Man vs. Machine

World Chess Championship 2000

Official Rules and Regulations

1. Structure of the match

1. The match shall consist of 8 games, with players alternating colors each round.

2. The winner of the match is the player who scores 4.5 or more points.

3. In the event that the Computer Challenge is decided before the eight games set out in paragraph 1 above have been played, the Players will continue to play until the conclusion of the eighth game or offer their services to Braingames in any way agreeable to both parties.

4. In the event of tie

2. Prizes

1. The prize fund for the match is one million United States Dollars.

2. $

3. Prizes shall be awarded at the prizegiving, on 1 November 2001 at a place and time to be agreed upon.

3. Schedule

1. Scheduled games will be played at 3:00 PM _ 9:00 PM local time at the Royal Meridien Hotel Bahrain, on the following dates:

I. Sunday, October 14

ii. Tuesday, October 16

iii. Thursday, October 18

iv. Saturday, October 20

v. Monday, October 22

vi. Wednesday, October 24

vii. Friday, October 26

viii. Sunday, October 28

2. If a game is adjourned (see section 4), it will resume at 3:00 PM on the following day. Play will continue for two hours (until 5:00 PM) , after which there will be a two-hour break.

3. The third playing session will commence at 7:00 PM and continue for two hours until 9:00 PM, at which time the game will be adjourned again, with Mr. Kramnik having the option of sealing the move or requiring Fritz to do so.

4. In the event that a afternoon session is delayed, the arbiters may postpone the start of the evening session at the request of Mr. Kramnik, but not later than 2 hours after the conclusion of the previous session.

5. Games which are adjourned after three sessions (scheduled and two adjournment) have been played will be continued on the next free days. Earlier games take precedence over later games.

4. Adjournments

1. Mr Kramnik shall have the exclusive right to adjourn any scheduled game at any time after at least 56 moves have been made by each player, or after 6 hours have elapsed since the clocks were started for the game

2. When the game is adjourned, the Player whose clock is running will write legibly write an unambiguous legal move on a form provided by the arbiter. The Player will fold the form and place it in a box provided by the Arbiter. which will be immediately locked. The box will remain in the custody of one Arbiter, with the other Arbiter having custody of the key. Can Fritz print out the move? Avoids any transcription error.

3. Mr. Kramnik may choose whether to adjourn when it is his turn to move or on Fritz's turn.

4. In the event Mr. Kramnik chooses to adjourn the game before 6 hours of play has elapsed, the clock time at adjournment will be the time the move was sealed.

5. Tournament Director and Match Committee

The tournament director for the match is Raymond Keene. The responsibility of the tournament director covers all aspects of the match not specifically delegated to the players, arbiters or match committee.

The match committee is responsible for ruling on appeals from delegations concerning the decisions of the arbiter or organizers. If a player wishes to appeal a decision, or make some other official complaint, they must submit a written appeal specifying the issue under dispute, the official ruling, and any comments or criticisms of that ruling, together with a requested specific remedy. The appeal should be filed as quickly as possible, but in any case not later than 2 hours following the conclusion of the game in which the incident occurred. If the incident occurred outside of a match game, the appeal must be filed not more than 6 hours before the scheduled start of the game, unless circumstances make that impossible. A quorum of three members is required for any action to be voted upon.

The match committee consists of :

· Chairman: Tony Buzan (England)

· Deputy Chairman: Lord Hardinge (Scotland)

· Grandmaster Lothar Schmid (Germany)

· Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson (Iceland)

· His Excellency Yousuf Shirawi (Bahrain)

· Henry Mutkin (England), non-voting Secretary

6. Arbiters

The Computer Challenge will be ruled and officiated by two Arbiters. Their decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to the Computer Challenge and the Rules shall, in the case of a dispute between Mr Kramnik and the Arbiters which cannot be resolved on the same day, be referred to an Appeals Committee established by agreement between the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding.

The arbiters for the match will be

· Dr. Enrique Irazoqui (Spain) will act as Technical Arbiter

· Dr. Eric Schiller (USA) will act as Chess Arbiter

Both arbiters will be on duty at all times while a game is in progress. Dr. Irazoqui will be the lead arbiter on technical computer issues. Dr. Schiller will be the lead arbiter on chess issues. Deputy Arbiters may be added to assist with various tasks or be present if it is necessary for either Arbiter to leave the room. In the event an Arbiter is ill or unable to perform, a Deputy Arbiter will replace him for that game.

The duties of the arbiter include:

1. Securing and checking the playing equipment and playing site

2. Setting and verifying the proper functioning of the chess clock

3. Check that the demonstration boards are properly set up and functioning

4. Check the private on-stage rooms and the toilet.

5. At least one arbiter shall be present at the playing venue 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the game, to deal with any issues that may arise.

6. During the game, insure that all of the rules and regulations of the match are enforced

7. The arbiters shall be on duty at any time when a game in progress.

8. At least one arbiter shall be present on stage at all times during the game.

9. At least one arbiter shall remain in the venue for 15 minutes after the conclusion of play, to deal with any issues that may arise.

10. Arbiters will dress properly, i.e. in jackets and ties and suitable other garments, at all times when they are on duty.

11. Arbiters shall take no action to influence the result of any game, nor will they do anything to distract the players save when required to act by the rules and regulations.

12. Arbiters shall take action as required to reduce or eliminate noise in the playing hall.

13. Arbiters shall cooperate with security personnel to identify spectators who have violated rules.

7. Time Control

1. In each game the Players shall have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter.

8. Specific rules for use of the computer

The following rules apply to the computer hardware, software and wetware (human persons assisting the machine):

8.1 The computer Operator

1. The Fritz Team will designate an Operator and up to three Reserve Operators.

2. The Operator is the only person who may interact with Fritz during the game.

3. The Operator may not interact with Fritz while Mr. Kramnik's clock is running.

4. The Operator may adjust the clock times used by Fritz only within 15 seconds of Fritz's clock being activated.

5. The Operator may be replaced by a Reserve Operator should the Operator be unable to perform for any extended period of time. Any replacement of Operator must be authorized by one of the Arbiters.

6. The Operators and Reserve Operators will take all reasonable measures to insure that their activities do not distract Mr. Kramnik.

8.2 Opening Books

1. The Fritz Team may prepare specific opening variations for use in the match, and program these into a database ("opening book") which the computer may consult during the game. The opening book may contain moves which the computer should or should not play in given circumstances, and may contain instructions ("weightings") that advise the program which moves to choose.

2. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program.

3. At the conclusion of each game the Arbiters will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and Arbiters per section 8.6. If they find any discrepancies, the Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiters.

8.3 Endgame Tablebases

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

2. When Fritz identifies the board position in a tablebase, it must inform an Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

3. In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the

position has been located in the tablebase.

4. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

5. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue.

6. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik's next move.

7. It is recognized that the program will access tablebases in its calculations. Rules 8.2 through 8.6 apply only when the position on the board is present in the tablebase.

8.4 Draw offers

1. Mr. Kramnik may offer a draw at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. The Operator is authorized to accept or decline the draw on behalf of Fritz.

2. The Operator may offer a draw on behalf of Fritz, however a draw may not be offered unless a previous offer by Mr. Kramnik has been declined.

3. If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress has been made.

4. The Arbiters will determine the validity of the claim, and their decision is subject to appeal by the Match Committee. Should the Arbiters uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If the Arbiters reject the claim, then the game continues.

5. During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, the penalty will be deduction of the lesser of 5 minutes, or 10% percent of Mr. Kramnik's remaining time. In the event a second claim of a technical draw is rejected in the same game, a 25% penalty will be assessed.

6. The offer of a draw will be signaled by a device activated from the chessboard area and by a traditional oral offer. The Arbiter may activate the device if a draw is offered under 8.4.3. Ideally, the device will show who made the draw offer, the time it was made, and whether the draw offer is a normal one or a technical one.

8.5 Software or Hardware failure

Software or hardware failure is defined as the inability of the program to deliver a legal chess move to the operator.

1. In the event of an obvious software or hardware failure, the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it.

2. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the arbiter will reactivate the clock.

3. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play. The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik.

4. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game.

5. In the event a member of the Fritz Team has reason to believe that machine failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped, in which case the procedures above apply.

8.5 Post-game confirmations

1. Within two hours after the conclusion of each game, the Fritz Team shall provide a printout of the computer analysis of the game to the Arbiters and Kramnik Team.

2. After each game, the Arbiters will be provided with an opportunity to compare the opening book used in the game with the opening book used in previous games.

8.6 Delivery of software

1. The final version of the program, including opening book and endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 10, 2001. No modifications can be made to the program after that date except with the explicit permission of the Kramnik Team.

2. The Fritz Team will cooperate with the Kramnik Team to insure that the software can be properly tested by the Kramnik Team.

3. Any concerns on the part of Mr. Kramnik will be delivered to the Technical Arbiter with a copy sent to the Fritz Team.

9. Players and their accompanying persons

The following persons are official members of the Kramnik Team and Fritz Team. They will have access to the VIP hospitality area and …

1. The Kramnik Team shall consist of:

· World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (Player)

· Miguel Illescas (Manager)

(more)

2. The Fritz Team shall consists of:

· (Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· Frederick Friedel (Manager)

10. Playing Conditions

1. The chairs, chessboard, scoresheets, pieces, tables and clocks shall be approved by each delegation.

2. The arrangement of the abovementioned items and the toilet and refreshment facilities shall be approved by each delegation.

3. Lighting shall be approved by each delegation

4. The players will review the arrangements listed in points 1-3 on Friday, October 5, at a time to be determined.

5. Spectators shall be located as indicated in the approved floor plan.

6. Spectators who interfere with play in any way will be removed from the playing hall as quickly as possible.

7. Only the players and arbiters can be on the stage during play.

8. Metal detectors will be used in the venue for spectators and players.

9. Mobile phones will be banned from the playing hall completely. An announcement will be made before each game that mobile phones, modems, pagers and beepers shall be switched off.

10. High level of security backstage.

11. Players agree to undergo a personal search prior to the start of each game.

11. Toilet and refreshment facilities

1. Toilet facilities shall be approved by the players prior to the start of the match.

2. Player's side rooms will be provided with chair, monitor showing current position of the game and refreshments. For each game, the player of the White pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closest to the player, and the player of the Black pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closes to him.

3. The arbiter may enter the private areas.

4. The organizers may place security cameras in the private rooms, but not in the toilet facilities.

12. Player responsibilities

1. All members of the Kramnik Team an Fritz Team will wear appropriate attire during all games, ceremonies and press functions. Specifically: shorts, T-shirts, sneakers/training shoes and jeans are prohibited.

2. Players shall make every effort to arrive punctually for all games and official events.

3. Players will attend the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and all Press Conferences.

13. Drawing of lots

First, the Champion shall choose one of two identical objects. One of the two objects will confer the right to choose the next lot.

Second, the winner of the first lot will choose one of two identical objects from the Staunton Cup. One will indicate that the holder will play the White side in the first game, and the other will indicate that the holder will play the Black side in the first game

14. Opening and Closing Ceremonies

The players are obliged to be at both events, which will be scheduled in the evening. The opening ceremony will not take place the evening before the first round unless absolutely necessary.

1. Opening ceremony is will take place October 5 at 6:30 PM in the Home House, 20 Portman Square, London W1H.

2. Closing ceremony will take place November 5 at a time and place to be determined by the organizers.

15. Press Conferences

1. The opening press conference will be on the morning of the opening ceremony.

2. There will be a press photo opportunity at 3:00 PM at the playing venue.

3. Post game conferences will be attended by both players however either player shall have the right to give a separate conference.

4. Post-game press conferences will be limited to ten minutes, as a goal, with an absolute maximum of 15 minutes unless one or both players agree to extend it for a few additional minutes.

16. Photography

1. Photographs and other video recording will be permitted during the first 15 minutes of the first game

2. In all subsequent games for 5 minutes after both players have arrived at the table.

3. Web cams providing authorized transmissions may be active at all times.

17. Illness and circumstances beyond the control of the organizers

1. If a player is unable to complete or play a game due to illness, the player shall forfeit the game.

2. In the event a game is cancelled due to reasons beyond the control of the organizers, it shall be rescheduled for two days after the final scheduled game of the match.

3. In the event a game in progress must be interrupted for reasons of health, security or in the event of power failure, the Tournament Director shall determine the appropriate action depending on the circumstances. The players may appeal this decision at any time prior to the resumption of play, or within four hours should the Tournament Director decide to annul the game.

18. Official Language

The official language for all rules, regulations and agreements is English. The Arbiters may also communicate with the players in other languages, should they deem it to be necessary.

{ATTACHMENT ENDS}

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I cant get attachments for some reason-I seem to remember mentioning this

before!

I am not sure how to proceed in view of silence from Massey I think it vital you talk to him-he is going to be in the island Shangri la hotel Hong Kong in about 7 hours-uk time 7-00am on the morning of Tuesday September 4-i think you should phone him there and ask him how he would like you to proceed-you cd also email him on maz451@aol.com the entire set of rules-or maybe run them by Justin first. running them by me wont really affect anything since my philosophy is that anything the players accept and you suggest I am happy with-also Justin is more aware of when and where ceremonies take place than I am.

so-here is my suggestion-

1 email the lot to Justin and ask for his comments;

2 do the same for Massey since he will be picking up his emails in Hong Kong;

ring him in Hong Kong to get a response; I will email you his hotel and

mobile numbers;

3 once they have cleared it send final version to players;

meanwhile for any gaps or controversial bits pls ask me specific questions

if you think I can help;

Irazoqui has resigned giving no reason-he was very odd and his great reputation did not stop anyone who felt like it attacking the qualifier in Cadaqués-so I cant say I am sorry-I have offered his job to Calvo who is there anyway and is also Spanish-that makes you technical arbiter as well

since Calvo is primarily there for diplomatic reasons-we may add a third technically proficient Bahraini volunteer as assistant arbiter whom you can train up.

are you coming via London-do you want to hang out for a few days en route-I

should be here

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

as I said-you will double as technical arbiter and you probably know more

than Irazoqui did anyway-however we may enlist some volunteer Bahraini

whiz kid to be assistant- however for the moment its vital we have two

arbiters for public consumption and do not appear to be fazed by the Irazoqui

withdrawal anyway

happy hunting

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

1. Will send the file to Justin and David, but will paste it into a message you can read, because you will surely know things like Match Committee members.

2. I will notify Matthias and Miguel that the draft is under review by BGN and will be ready for them very soon.

3. You obviously understand now why I turned Cadaques event down! But I didn't notice any criticism of him at all, so it must have been newsgroups stuff. I don't read it.

4. Calvo is OK. We obviously have very different views of Kasparov, but had no problems in London. We should have as third with better computer credentials. Sure I'm a developer and hack programmer, and could toss some computational linguistics in, but we really need a computer scientist. Doesn't have to be a chess person at all, not even knowing rules. After all, the technical job is to figure out if the computer is doing what it is supposed to. You might ask Ken Thompson to recommend someone of more advanced age (that is, with time on their hands). The only names I know are of people who can't possibly take off for a month, that's a real problem! Pay isn't a problem, anyone qualified is tremendously well-off. Even older ones probably have full conference schedules. But those people can recommend others, perhaps. I understand reluctance to go to the Swedish group, because the organization seems controversial, and I think we consulted one of them but didn't get much. Ask the Bahrainis if there is any local or Pan-Arab computer chess organization, maybe a lead there. I think it is a big risk to go with

just my technical knowledge. There have to be, in the *worst case*, off-site consultants. Maybe Thompson could do that?

If you are completely at a loss for a third, I am willing to contact Stanford computer science department and see if there is anything on offer.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I am generally fine with everything you say:

match committee

Tony Buzan chairman

lord Hardinge

Lothar Schmid

yousuf shirawi

<irrelevant bit deleted>

my inclination is to ask Bahrain-who are officials -wise a bit under

represented-to supply a computer whiz -maybe the chairman of their national

computer association or something like that-don't forget I am trying to reel

in these guys for the 2002 wcc title defense

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

OK. Bahrainis can appoint someone, surely that's good for BGN, gives an excuse if any foul-ups.

But I'd still use a TA position as a sponsor hook, I think it carries great prestige in the industry. No harm with extras. Ricardo or I would be in charge at all times.

However, in any case we need to sort out the titles for me, Ricardo and the third. One is TA. However, where the TA and CA were, when only two, equal, with more we need a bit more organization. This impacts the rules doc, and I'll sleep on it. I'm reluctant to suggest that I become Chief Arbiter (rather than Chess Arbiter), but of the arbiters I think I'm clearly most qualified. Maybe best, for ego reasons, simply to organize the rules such that two of three arbiters must agree.

Or, again keeping the egos in mind, we can have Ricardo as Chess Arbiter, xxx as Technical Arbiter, and me as General Arbiter, with the rules actually conferring the authority of chief arbiter on me but the title less hierarchical and less likely to bother Ricardo. You'll have to play diplomat here, but we can't have more than two without someone in charge.

Likewise we could skip the designation and simply assign duties, with each position described as Arbiter. I don't think that is useful for the technical guy, though.

Devil is in the details, isn't it.

OK, you are in bed, I will get on to communicating with the others.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

our immediate need with the two teams is to have been seen to appoint a

technical arbiter quickly and to be unfazed by Irazoqui's defection. I therefore suggest you become chief arbiter with responsibility for

technical matters

Calvo will be chess arbiter

and at our leisure we locate a technical assistant in Bahrain in due course this way we have solved the problem and are under no pressure to find a third

arbiter whose role will evidently be subordinate

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

As soon as BGN signs off on the draft, I'll have it in your hands. David Massey has been enroute to China, not easy to reach. If I don't hear from him tomorrow, I'll try to get permission to send it to you as is. Most of what BGN has to supply involves scheduling of press conferences and

other obligatory events alongside the match.

We may require some adjustment to the rules, if, for example, we have 3 arbiters instead of two, as is now under discussion.

More tomorrow.

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Any ideas on what OS will be used?

For what it's worth, I've got a dual-processor machine up and running with Win2000, NT and WinXP, and am getting some familiarity with potential technical problems for each OS with multi-CPU. No serious problems so far with DF. (CB8 + DF6 did crash W2000 after an extended think, but it was a clean crash, no residual problems. using 256 Meg hash tables in 1 Gig RAM machine). Hopefully the Internet connection and display technology is solid. Generally, I find that XP, even in the late beta I have, is the most stable of the three operating systems, especially in the multi-processor environment.

One big difference with XP is the boot time. My Win2000 system is about twice as slow on the dual-CPU machine, and on my single CPU, the difference is 7 minutes to 2. OTOH, XP no doubt has more hidden bugs as yet undiscovered. I haven't had time to play with it much, mostly working in Win2000, and still Win98 on the laptop.

4 September 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: All

I am delighted to report that eminent chess historian and international

master Ricardo Calvo - Madrid Spain- today accepted the position as arbiter

for Bahrain according to the conditions set out in the invitation of

September 3. his email address is given above-pls include him in all further

arbitral discussions

thanks

5 September 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

What is it with BGN, isn't anyone ever in an office? The deadline for agreeing to all terms is Friday with delivery date of Monday. The rules stuff has to get done, but no contact from Justin or David.

I have been waiting almost a WEEK for feedback from them.

I suggest that I send out the draft in its current form to Miguel and Matthias. If BGN has any changes they can discuss them later. I'll just fill in blanks with whatever I come up with.

What do you think?

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I agree-did you get the right schedule from Justin's office-

to recap

game 1 October 14

game 2 Oct 16

game 3 Oct 18

game 4 Oct 20

game 5 Oct 24

game 6 Oct 26

game 7 Oct 28

game 8 Oct 30

if no-one has responded just send it out as you suggest

From: Eric Schiller To: All

I attach the draft of the regulations. Various parties have been abroad and haven't been able to review it, so if there are surprises, relax and just send me updates. The document is presented below in HTML (if it doesn't come through, email me and I'll send plain text and PDF, or whatever format you wish) so that I believe all of you can read it. Material in red indicates that I haven't had input and simply carried over or adapted the Kramnik-Kasparov rules. I couldn't find the Fritz prizes on the Bahrain website so I ask you to give me them officially. I don't want to assume the press reports are all accurate :-)

The recent change in lineup of arbiters leaves the actual duties to be sorted out. Following Ray Keene's instructions I have set it up with at least three arbiters. My responsibilities expand to include technical tasks, which, given my background, shouldn't be a problem But in any case we are seeking one additional arbiter with appropriate computer chess background. As you all probably know, I have an extensive chess background, and extensive computer background, but as far as chess computing is concerned I have primarily been a software designer, not programmer. Still, I'm sure I can understand the issues, which is the most important thing. Ricardo Calvo has been appointed as Arbiter, and will weigh in primarily on the chess side. The original regs were written for a nice simple division of Technical Arbiter and Chess Arbiter as equals, but with now three persons involved, Ray agreed it was better to have some chief. In any case, there aren't going to be any disputes, so it all will hopefully be of little importance :-) In any case, the appeals procedure is in place.

I'll be available most of the next two days. If I get feedback from each of you tomorrow, you'll have the final version Friday morning or sooner.

Once again, should you encounter anything unfamiliar or contrary to your understanding, just point it out. I've gotten instructions from many directions, and can only hope to have the final understandings represented here.

The schedule is as I received it, literally cut and pasted it in. Hopefully more details will be available, especially an opening and closing press conference, assuming those are planned.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Braingames.net Man vs. Machine

World Chess Championship 2000

Official Rules and Regulations

1. Structure of the match

1. The match shall consist of 8 games, with players alternating colours each round.

2. The winner of the match is the player who scores 4.5 or more points.

3. In the event that the Computer Challenge is decided before the eight games set out in paragraph 1 above have been played, the Players will continue to play until the conclusion of the eighth game or offer their services to Braingames in any way agreeable to both parties.

4. In the event of tie the title …

2. Prizes

1. The prize fund for the match is one million United States Dollars.

2. If Mr. Kramnik wins he will receive $1,000,000 and the Fritz Team will receive …

3. If the match is drawn $800,000 if he draws and Fritz Team will receive …

4. If Fritz wins the Fritz Team will receive … and Mr. Kramnik will receive $600,000.

5. Prizes shall be awarded at the prizegiving, on 1 November 2001 at a place and time to be agreed upon.

3. Schedule

11 Oct Thursday 12 Friday 13 Saturday 14 Sunday 15 Monday 16 Tuesday 17 Wednesday

Arrival in Bahrain Opening Ceremony Free Day Game 1 Free Day Game 2 Free Day

      Start 15:00   Start 15:00  

  Exhibition Opening   Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  

  Cocktail Party   Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins  

18 Thursday 19 Friday 20 Saturday 21 Sunday 22 Monday 23 Tuesday 24 Wednesday

Game 3 Free Day Game 4 Free Day Free Day Free Day Game 5

Start 15:00   Start 15:00       Start 15:00

Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  Proposed opening of the Bahrain Mind Sports Centre Islamic Symposium     Finish 21:00

Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins       Press Conference - 15 mins

25 Thursday 26 Friday 27 Saturday 28 Sunday 29 Monday 30 Tuesday 31 Wednesday

Free Day Game 6 Free Day Game 7 Free Day Game 8 Free Day

  Start 15:00   Start 15:00   Start 15:00  

  Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  

  Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins  

1 Nov Thursday 2 Friday 3 Saturday 4 Sunday 5 Monday 6 Tuesday 7 Wednesday

Prize giving Ceremony Departure          

1. Scheduled games will be played at 3:00 PM _ 9:00 PM local time at the Royal Meridien Hotel Bahrain, on the following dates:

i. Sunday, October 14

ii. Tuesday, October 16

iii. Thursday, October 18

iv. Saturday, October 20

v. Monday, October 22

vi. Wednesday, October 24

vii. Friday, October 26

viii. Sunday, October 28

2. If a game is adjourned (see section 4), it will resume at 3:00 PM on the following day. Play will continue for two hours (until 5:00 PM) , after which there will be a two-hour break.

3. The third playing session will commence at 7:00 PM and continue for two hours until 9:00 PM, at which time the game will be adjourned again, with Mr. Kramnik having the option of sealing the move or requiring Fritz to do so.

4. In the event that a afternoon session is delayed, the arbiters may postpone the start of the evening session at the request of Mr. Kramnik, but not later than 2 hours after the conclusion of the previous session.

5. Games which are adjourned after three sessions (scheduled and two adjournment) have been played will be continued on the next free days. Earlier games take precedence over later games.

4. Adjournments

3. 1. Mr Kramnik shall have the exclusive right to adjourn any scheduled game at any time after at least 56 moves have been made by each player, or after 6 hours have elapsed since the clocks were started for the game

2. When the game is adjourned, the Player whose clock is running will write legibly write an unambiguous legal move on a form provided by the arbiter. The Player will fold the form and place it in a box provided by the Arbiter. which will be immediately locked. The box will remain in the custody of one Arbiter, with the other Arbiter having custody of the key. Can Fritz print out the move? Avoids any transcription error.

3. Mr. Kramnik may choose whether to adjourn when it is his turn to move or on Fritz's turn.

4. In the event Mr. Kramnik chooses to adjourn the game before 6 hours of play has elapsed, the clock time at adjournment will be the time the move was sealed.

5. Tournament Director and Match Committee

The tournament director for the match is Raymond Keene. The responsibility of the tournament director covers all aspects of the match not specifically delegated to the players, arbiters or match committee.

The match committee is responsible for ruling on appeals from delegations concerning the decisions of the arbiter or organizers. If a player wishes to appeal a decision, or make some other official complaint, they must submit a written appeal specifying the issue under dispute, the official ruling, and any comments or criticisms of that ruling, together with a requested specific remedy. The appeal should be filed as quickly as possible, but in any case not later than 2 hours following the conclusion of the game in which the incident occurred. If the incident occurred outside of a match game, the appeal must be filed not more than 6 hours before the scheduled start of the game, unless circumstances make that impossible. A quorum of three members is required for any action to be voted upon.

The match committee consists of :

· Chairman: Tony Buzan (England)

· Deputy Chairman: Lord Hardinge (Scotland)

· Grandmaster Lothar Schmid (Germany)

· His Excellency Yousuf Shirawi (Bahrain)

6. Arbiters

The Computer Challenge will be ruled and officiated by Arbiters. Their decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to the Computer Challenge and the Rules shall, in the case of a dispute between Mr Kramnik and the Arbiters which cannot be resolved on the same day, be referred to an Appeals Committee established by agreement between the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding.

The arbiters for the match will be

· Dr. Eric Schiller (USA) will act as Chief Arbiter and Technical Arbiter

· Dr. Ricardo Calvo (Portugal) will act as Chess Arbiter

· an additional technical arbiter will be appointed by BGN

Two arbiters, normally including the Chief Arbiter, will be on duty at all times while a game is in progress. Deputy Arbiters may be added to assist with various tasks or be present if it is necessary for either Arbiter to leave the room. In the event an Arbiter is ill or unable to perform, a Deputy Arbiter will replace him for that game.

The duties of the arbiter include:

1. Securing and checking the playing equipment and playing site

2. Setting and verifying the proper functioning of the chess clock

3. Check that the demonstration boards are properly set up and functioning

4. Check the private on-stage rooms and the toilet.

5. At least one arbiter shall be present at the playing venue 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the game, to deal with any issues that may arise.

6. During the game, insure that all of the rules and regulations of the match are enforced

7. The arbiters shall be on duty at any time when a game in progress.

8. At least one arbiter shall be present on stage at all times during the game.

9. At least one arbiter shall remain in the venue for 15 minutes after the conclusion of play, to deal with any issues that may arise.

10. Arbiters will dress properly, i.e. in jackets and ties and suitable other garments, at all times when they are on duty.

11. Arbiters shall take no action to influence the result of any game, nor will they do anything to distract the players save when required to act by the rules and regulations.

12. Arbiters shall take action as required to reduce or eliminate noise in the playing hall.

13. Arbiters shall cooperate with security personnel to identify spectators who have violated rules.

7. Time Control

1. In each game the Players shall have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter.

8. Specific rules for use of the computer

The following rules apply to the computer hardware, software and operators:

8.1 The computer Operator

1. The Fritz Team will designate an Operator and up to three Reserve Operators.

2. The Operator is the only person who may interact with Fritz during the game.

3. The Operator may not interact with Fritz while Mr. Kramnik's clock is running.

4. The Operator may adjust the clock times used by Fritz only within 15 seconds of Fritz's clock being activated.

5. The Operator may be replaced by a Reserve Operator should the Operator be unable to perform for any extended period of time. Any replacement of Operator must be authorized by one of the Arbiters.

6. The Operators and Reserve Operators will take all reasonable measures to insure that their activities do not distract Mr. Kramnik.

8.2 Opening Books

1. The Fritz Team may prepare specific opening variations for use in the match, and program these into a database ("opening book") which the computer may consult during the game. The opening book may contain moves which the computer should or should not play in given circumstances, and may contain instructions ("weightings") that advise the program which moves to choose.

2. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program.

3. At the conclusion of each game the Arbiters will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and Arbiters per section 8.6. If they find any discrepancies, the Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiters.

8.3 Endgame Tablebases

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

2. When Fritz identifies the board position in a tablebase, it must inform an Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

3. In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.

4. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

5. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the

Arbiter. The game will continue.

6. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik's next move.

7. It is recognized that the program will access tablebases in its calculations. Rules 8.2 through 8.6 apply only when the position on the board is present in the tablebase.

8.4 Draw offers

1. Mr. Kramnik may offer a draw at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. The Operator is authorized to accept or decline the draw on behalf of Fritz.

2. The Operator may offer a draw on behalf of Fritz, however a draw may not be offered unless a previous offer by Mr. Kramnik has been declined.

3. If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress has been made.

4. The Arbiters will determine the validity of the claim, and their decision is subject to appeal by the Match Committee. Should the Arbiters uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If the Arbiters reject the claim, then the game continues.

5. During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, the penalty will be deduction of the lesser of 5 minutes, or 10% percent of Mr. Kramnik's remaining time. In the event a second claim of a technical draw is rejected in the same game, a 25% penalty will be assessed.

6. The offer of a draw will be signalled by a device activated from the chessboard area and by a traditional oral offer. The Arbiter may activate the device if a draw is offered under 8.4.3. Ideally, the device will show who made the draw offer, the time it was made, and whether the draw offer is a normal one or a technical one.

8.5 Software or Hardware failure

Software or hardware failure is defined as the inability of the program to deliver a legal chess move to the operator.

1. In the event of an obvious software or hardware failure, the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it.

2. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the arbiter will reactivate the clock.

3. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play. The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik.

4. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game.

5. In the event a member of the Fritz Team has reason to believe that machine failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped, in which case the procedures above apply.

8.5 Post-game confirmations

1. Within two hours after the conclusion of each game, the Fritz Team shall provide a printout of the computer analysis of the game to the Arbiters and Kramnik Team.

2. After each game, the Arbiters will be provided with an opportunity to compare the opening book used in the game with the opening book used in previous games.

8.6 Delivery of software

1. The final version of the program, including opening book and endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 10, 2001. No modifications can be made to the program after that date except with the explicit permission of the Kramnik Team.

2. The Fritz Team will cooperate with the Kramnik Team to insure that the software can be properly tested by the Kramnik Team.

3. Any concerns on the part of Mr. Kramnik will be delivered to the Technical Arbiter with a copy sent to the Fritz Team.

9. Players and their accompanying persons

The following persons are official members of the Kramnik Team and Fritz Team. They will have access to the VIP hospitality area and …

1. The Kramnik Team shall consist of:

· World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (Player)

· Miguel Illescas (Manager)

(more)

2. The Fritz Team shall consists of:

· (Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· Frederick Friedel (Manager)

10. Playing Conditions

1. The chairs, chessboard, scoresheets, pieces, tables and clocks shall be approved by each delegation.

2. The arrangement of the abovementioned items and the toilet and refreshment facilities shall be approved by each delegation.

3. Lighting shall be approved by each delegation

4. The players will review the arrangements listed in points 1-3 on Friday, October 12, at a time to be determined.

5. Spectators shall be located as indicated in the approved floor plan.

6. Spectators who interfere with play in any way will be removed from the playing hall as quickly as possible.

7. Only the players and arbiters can be on the stage during play.

8. Metal detectors will be used in the venue for spectators and players.

9. Mobile phones will be banned from the playing hall completely. An announcement will be made before each game that mobile phones, modems, pagers and beepers shall be switched off.

10. High level of security backstage.

11. Players agree to undergo a personal search prior to the start of each game.

11. Toilet and refreshment facilities

1. Toilet facilities shall be approved by the players prior to the start of the match.

2. Player's side rooms will be provided with chair, monitor showing current position of the game and refreshments. For each game, the player of the White pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closest to the player, and the player of the Black pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closes to him.

3. The arbiter may enter the private areas.

4. The organizers may place security cameras in the private rooms, but not in the toilet facilities.

12. Player responsibilities

1. All members of the Kramnik Team an Fritz Team will wear appropriate attire during all games, ceremonies and press functions. Specifically: shorts, T-shirts, sneakers/training shoes and jeans are prohibited.

2. Players shall make every effort to arrive punctually for all games and official events.

3. Players will attend the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and all Press Conferences.

13. Drawing of lots

First, the Champion shall choose one of two identical objects. One of the two objects will confer the right to choose the next lot.

Second, the winner of the first lot will choose one of two identical objects from the a container supplied by the Organizers. One will indicate that the holder will play the White side in the first game, and the other will indicate that the holder will play the Black side in the first game

14. Opening and Closing Ceremonies

The players are obliged to be at both events, which will be scheduled in the evening. The opening ceremony will not take place the evening before the first round unless absolutely necessary.

1. Opening ceremony is will take place October 12 at a time and place to be determined by the organizers.

2. Closing ceremony will take place November 1 at a time and place to be determined by the organizers.

15. Press Conferences

1. The opening press conference will be on Friday, October 12.

2. Post game conferences of 15 minutes duration will be attended by both players however either player shall have the right to give a separate conference.

16. Photography

1. Photographs and other video recording will be permitted during the first 15 minutes of the first game

2. In all subsequent games for 5 minutes after both players have arrived at the table.

3. Web cams and television or video cameras providing authorised transmissions may be active at all times.

17. Illness and circumstances beyond the control of the organizers

1. If a player is unable to complete or play a game due to illness, the player shall forfeit the game.

2. In the event a game is cancelled due to reasons beyond the control of the organizers, it shall be rescheduled for two days after the final scheduled game of the match.

3. In the event a game in progress must be interrupted for reasons of health, security or in the event of power failure, the Tournament Director shall determine the appropriate action depending on the circumstances. The players may appeal this decision at any time prior to the resumption of play, or within four hours should the Tournament Director decide to annul the game.

18. Official Language

The official language for all rules, regulations and agreements is English. The Arbiters may also communicate with the players in other languages, should they deem it to be necessary.

6 September 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

I have only tested Deep Fritz on Win2000. I acquired the machine from one of my students, and prior to rebuilding it checked it out. But I haven't got a copy of DF, so can't install on XP. I've ordered Deep Junior upgrade from Malcolm, but not yet DF, figured I'd get it at the match. I run Fritz6, Junior7,Hiarchs7, and a few other engines, primarily in CB. I don't use the playing programs for much except batch processing analysis.

CB8 runs fine on XP, so far. Well, as well as it runs elsewhere, anyway. Running with a gig of RAM seems to keep it behaving a bit better. As you probably know, I have a love/hate relationship with CB, and have replaced a lot of CB work with XML, so that I really use CB just as a database with engines. I used to file bug reports, but the last few bounced with a message that CB wouldn't accept the email! But I still use it a few hours a day, and have probably encountered every known and unknown bug countless times. And I am producing some CB CDs, for Sid Pickard. A new mega-Tarrasch disk will be out as soon as I can complete final revisions.

Naturally I'd appreciate the hundred points CB Player encyclopedia routinely strips from my rating, but I'm used to such things. I just strip out all the ratings from any project, since they are unreliable (and forgive me if my review pointed that out prominently!).

I'll be checking the CB output with IE 6. As you know IE 6 has dropped a lot of support for non-MS languages, including QuickTime and java and scripting languages. Now that President Shrub is dropping the suit against Microsoft, we are more and more subject to their whims. Some of their changes really affect current development projects, and coping with .NET isn't easy as the objects are different and a bunch of recoding may be needed. That's one reason XML is such an attractive alternative, it is stable and easily modified.

If you haven't seen it, the complete XML documentation for chess is up at Chess City. The 2.0 version has developed considerable. Automatic real-time translation is now integrated. Perhaps in Bahrain I can put on my XML evangelist cloak and encourage you to make use of it!

If you want me to test something on XP, just point me to an FTP site. I'm on broadband and can handle a few hundred megs with no problem. I've got .NET installed on that machine, too.

Meanwhile, if you have any comments on the rules and regs, send them along. Most of the delays are at BGN

end, you and Miguel have been great! Thanks!

7 September 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Matthias Wüllenweber

the appropriate way to do this is to ask the arbiters to put it in the rules

first-Eric Schiller the chief arbiter either has produced or will soon

produce the rules on which you and the fritz team should comment and

Kramnik's team will as well-if the arbiters don't concur with your suggestion

only then you can appeal to the match committee-you don't go straight to the

match committee when we haven't finished finalizing the rules!

I have copied this and your original email to Eric

very best wishes

lets hope there are NO bugs

From: James Pryor To: Raymond Keene

Ray Did we get any further on a sponsor for the clock? My guess is that we are not any further as with the other bits......what exactly do we need and do you know a good supplier here in London. Am I right in thinking that it will be OK to use the Fritz output as a main clock but we still need a match clock (as a man v/s man) on the table?? Please come back James

From: Raymond Keene To: James Pryor

you must speak to Eric about this!!

Malcolm Pein 0207 388 0204 will probably be able to supply the necessary to

Eric's specifications

I am a bit concerned that if we rely solely on fritz timer and Kramnik loses

a game on time forfeit that we cd be in for some legitimate criticism

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

presumably you are sending out the draft rules today-meanwhile you will see

from the emails that Wüllenweber is getting very excited-can you calm him

down-also Pryor has many relevant questions-e.g. clock

all the best

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Draft rules went out last night.

The clock, as per my previous message, is a right mess.

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

We must have a proper clock in the table, and the time displayed on the clock must be visible to players, arbiters, spectators and the net. The Fritz clock is in no way official at all, that is a clock handled by the operator.

The problem is that I am in the dark regarding the board technology, have no idea whose display system you are using, and puzzled because it usually includes a clock.

I hadn't given this matter any thought, since it was bound up with display tech last time and we had to use the shitty DGT clock. With a bit of notice, I could probably have obtained a Saitek or Chronos with appropriate connection, but with just a few weeks to go, the clock issue should be dealt with by whoever is arranging the set and board and so on.

It is a very complicated question, as Malcolm knows. Last time we didn't get the (DGT) clocks until late, they didn't work properly, and we had to fudge the time control.

Someone has to take charge of this issue, and it has to be the technical people. My role should simply be to approve the clock.

This matter should be attended to immediately, and treated as extremely urgent!

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

I just got your note about repairs. I think we need to work on wording, "playing generally the same" won't do. As a preliminary suggestion, I could work up a suite of test positions, and the repaired program would have to find the same moves as before. Is that reasonable?

Don't worry, we'll work all this out quickly.

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I wrote Matthias and suggested that I test the machine after any modification by giving it a suite of test positions, which must be evaluated the same way as before. See what he thinks.

Eric Schiller

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Eric Fair point and I agree, it should be treated as `extremely urgent' along with about 10 other items that we were promised as `sponsored' that have not actually materialized. I was told (and had no reason to question it) that the board was being supplied by Fredrick. Now if you are insisting that we have to use our own board, I will ensure that one is on site for the event. What I need from you and Ray, are the exact specs. Ray, we can talk about this next week when we meet. I will also have my own lap-top in the BGN office. Eric, you are the chief arbiter and I want to make sure that everything is in place. Tell me if you need two computers and the packages that you need to work on and I will make sure they will be there. I will take responsibility for this but like I said earlier when I took on the project, I am going to need a little guidance as to exactly what is required. Will keep you up to speed as and when Kindest James

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I am not sure this is the problem the fritz team are whining about-have you

seen the ten questions to chess base on Kasparov's website-Friedel and co are

completely floored by this and very despondent-can you come up with some good

answers we can bat straight back into the Kasparov camp-I will email you my

responses to Friedel so far on a your eyes only basis-

<irrelevant bit deleted>

-I really need your help on this to

get a finished document we can whack in which is both honest and powerful!

I would like to get a polished document ready with your help and bang it in

to kc tomorrow-the whole point is that this match is meant to be much

fairer than the last one-so a joint reply by the match director and chief

arbiter ought to do the trick-if we haven't made it fairer then we have failed!

are you game? I am in most of tomorrow if you want to ring me

From: Frederic Friedel To: Raymond Keene

Just a quick reaction. I would not know how to formulate the answers to some of the questions cleverly. Mainly you should not give anyone (especially you-know-who) an opportunity to come back devastatingly and in full force.

Having said that I think we must find a solution quickly (before Sunday night). Maybe Matthias has some suggestions, maybe Miguel can help?! On some of the questions I am at my wit's end.

======================

3. We heard that the program's opening book can be modified. What percentage of the book is it possible to change in so little time?

> q3 I wd stick with the ten moves answer- but point out that even one

> move can make a big difference -for example had Kasparov already

> played the Caro Kann in game 4 of the 1997 match and had the computer

> played 8ne4 and had the single move 8 nxe6 been added in the interim

> it would have made a hell of a lot of difference!! I think this

> example is worth quoting maybe even with moves and diagrams for the

> uninitiated.

I do not understand this. If I know the opponent is definitely going to play one specific line I can deviate with one move. In general you have to use thousands of moves to cover all possibilities and transpositions. It sounds like an incredibly difficult (and artificial) task: repair an opening using no more than ten moves.

======================

4. What is to prevent Kramnik and all his GM assistants from finding literally hundreds of games in which Fritz can be beaten, and Kramnik repeating eight of these games in the match in Bahrain?

> q4 I suggest the following answer: "this is very unlikely to happen

> since fritz has an excellent openings book prepared by top GMs which

> should avoid such disasters;"

Okay, but the problem is that every single day these weak players are showing on the Internet that it can be done. They are doing it with the million position tournament openings books provided with the top programs. You would be saying that the 2100 players can find killer games at the rate of one per day, but Kramnik will not be able to so in two months of preparation. Kasparov and co. know very well about the killer games.

======================

6. Is it true that there are a number of amateur chess players, rated around 2100, who would be able to beat all top programs under similar conditions?

> q6 why not simply repeat what you told me- i.e. the challenge you

> offered to these amateurs and state accurately that such amateurs

> have all declined it-that seems to me to be conclusive

Sorry, Ray, you don't remember correctly. What I wrote was:

On at least two occasions I have challenged Nemeth, on the forums, to play a public match against a 1 GHz machine. He ACCEPTED my challenge but insisted on the following conditions:

1. He must get the program a month in advance.

2. He will only play against the exact version of Fritz I have supplied. It must be freshly installed on the machine in his presence.

3. Nothing may be changed during the match.

Nemeth is willing to bet DM 1000 that he will beats Fritz under these conditions. I naturally did not accepted as I was sure he would win.

======================

> q7 I would just say that it is the universal opinion of all involved

> that games will not be repeated! ( actually this question is just

> plain silly- its not going to happen-between you and me if Vlad does

> repeat wins he will make himself and the match a laughing stock and

> also kill the goose that lays the golden egg for the future!! I don't

> think he's that dumb!!)

I sincerely hope this is the case. But you do not have to repeat the game exactly, just the main idea, getting there by a different route. This is what the 2100 amateurs do. They essentially have two or three games, and keep finding new ways to reach the same critical position.

======================

> q8 the answer to this MUST be that ChessBase will be represented in

> Bahrain-preferably by you(-if not the Bahrainis will be insulted and

> there will be no press sprecher for fritz-that is not part of the

> answer!) pls ad a few details about yourself so I can build you up as

> a personality!

Okay, but they want to know if a TEAM is going. Friedel going is like Klara Kasparova going. Question is will Dokhojan be there (but not allowed to talk to Kasparov during the entire match).

======================

> q9 I would say -truthfully-that the polls indicate fritz is the

> favorite but you regard any outcome as a satisfactory scientific

> gauge of the current relative strength of man v machine-remember only

> Kramnik and a computer have ever beaten Garry in a match while only

> fritz has defeated Garry Anand and deep blue before

The polls, which are being collected by one Michael Scheidl for me, say completely and overwhelmingly that Fritz doesn't have a chance. I sent you the three that were posted today:

Gregor Overney: Deep fritz will not win this match. It might draw a few games but I would be surprised if deep fritz can win one game.

Slater Wold: Just about everyone in this forum knows Deep Fritz is going to get crushed.

Uri Blass: I am almost sure that Deep Fritz is going to get crushed. My prediction after hearing that Kramnik got the program is 100% for Kramnik.

It's been a long time since I saw anyone say something vaguely optimistic about Fritz's prospects.

======================

> q10 I would say that we are all striving to get a situation where the

> computer plays for itself and is not advised or coached by humans as

> IBM was- the restrictions are designed to achieve this-as I have said

> before when Chinook dropped its entire openings book and played whole

> games on its own it killed the human checkers opposition in a way it

> had never done before!! I honestly feel that human input hampered

> previous programs by making them play positions that did not suit

> them.

Okay, diplomatic. But the question was why did ChessBase agree to the conditions and was ChessBase simply happy to take the PR and run, even if the games are essentially pre-prepared by the opponent and their program is massacred?

======================

> frankly if you programmed fritz to play modest moves like 1c3 and

> 1,,,c6-whatever vlads first move- in every game as white and black it

> is hardly likely that Vlad would have worked out strategies in

> advance that guaranteed victory-lets face it last time deep blues

> openings against Garry were unpredictable and in some cases just plain

> rustic!

I suppose we could play 1.a3 and 2.h3, or 1.a3 and 2.a4, to make sure we don't run into per-prepared games. But that is most unsatisfactory, forcing Fritz to play bad openings (and essentially without an openings book) because of the special circumstances of this match.

> you guys at chess base need to be a lot more positive especially when

> confronted by the press-everyone thought Kasparov wd win easily last

> time and if he had drawn game 2 he probably wd have done and we would

> not be here at all!! look on the bright side-this controversy is

> going to get us a hell of lot more publicity-kc is trying to imply we

> are part of a fix-not true-none of has done anything wrong-if we erred

> at all it was because I felt Kasparov lost because of unfair

> conditions last time and I pushed the pendulum a little too far the

> other way-but there is no hidden agenda-no conspiracy-we are genuinely

> trying to get the best match and one where the computer really is

> fully responsible for its own moves and clearly and publicly so!!

I fully agree, and I am searching for a formula where we can explain the unique conditions imposed on this match. Especially it is very detrimental and ever more difficult to explain when new conditions are imposed: e.g. we are allowed to change just ten moves between games; VK can adjourn any time he wants (after move 56); he can determine who seals; he can adjourn again if he sees a five-piece ending; he can consult computers and in fact his opponent during these adjournments, but Fritz may not be touched by its team, etc. etc. I can feel Matthias's the others' frustration when I talk with them.

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Raymond Keene

Sorry about "adverse", it was not good to say that.

When will the match committee get into action? We need its authority to clarify the scenario of possible technical problems quickly.

We hereby officially appeal to the match committee to implement the following rule:

"If the computer team during or before the match detects any technical problem with the software and or the hardware it may fix this problem between or before games, provided the general playing style of the program, as submitted to Mr. Kramnik, remains unchanged. The computer team has to submit the corrected program to Mr. Kramnik and the technical arbiter".

There are many good reasons for this, the most trivial that we need sufficient testing time on the match hardware,

From: Raymond Keene To: James Pryor

we discussed the board yesterday-I am still very unclear about whether we

use a ChessBase board or not-I see no reason we shouldn't- it is presumably

free? if the board links to the display system so much the better! what we

must be careful about is using the ChessBase inbuilt clock as the official

timer in case Vlad loses a game on time and then complains that the timing

device was supplied by the opposition! however if Miguel Illescas is happy to

use a chess base inbuilt timer then we have no problem!

I suggest the following procedure:

1 you ask Friedel whether we should in his opinion be using the ChessBase

board and clock and do they do all the things we want them to?

2 assuming yes get him to acquire Illescas agreement to this

3 we only need to change tack if the answer no comes back at any stage

4 assuming yes Friedel should bring all the relevant technology with him to

Bahrain

5 if there is a no we should go to Malcolm Pein at the London chess centre

0207 388 2404 and buy a board and appropriate clock

I hope this helps-but we should thrash it out definitively next week-

meanwhile maybe you could ask Friedel for his views to get the ball rolling

thanks

From: Raymond Keene To: Frederic Friedel

I agree-lets respond promptly Saturday but also lets get the responses ready

tonight

we should respond to as many websites as possible incl Braingames-brains in

Bahrain chess city and any others you can think of- however-we must put it in

context-lets have an opening para like this:

"Garry Kasparov's website has posed ten interesting and important questions

concerning the forthcoming million dollar man v machine showdown set for

Bahrain in October-the last such occasion was in 1997 when Kasparov himself

narrowly lost to IBM's deep blue. in what follows match director for Bahrain

grandmaster ray Keene answers the Kasparov website questions- and we repeat

the questions for those who did not originally see them-everyone -in any

media , print or website forum-is welcome to publish the responses"

the ten responses

world human champion Vladimir Kramnik v deep fritz Bahrain October 2001

repeat each question and our answer

your preamble is fine -I agree with it

q1 your answer is ok

q2 answer is ok tho you might want to add the names of the match committee to

show how impeccable their credentials are Buzan Schmid shirawi lord Hardinge

q3 I wd stick with the ten moves answer- but point out that even one move can

make a big difference -for example had Kasparov already played the Caro Kann

in game 4 of the 1997 match and had the computer played 8ne4 and had the

single move 8 nxe6 been added in the interim it would have made a hell of a

lot of difference!! I think this example is worth quoting maybe even with

moves and diagrams for the uninitiated.

q4 I suggest the following answer: "this is very unlikely to happen since

fritz has an excellent openings book prepared by top GMs which should avoid

such disasters;"

q5 simple answer to this is "yes"

q6 why not simply repeat what you told me- i.e. the challenge you offered to

these amateurs and state accurately that such amateurs have all declined

it-that seems to me to be conclusive

q7 I would just say that it is the universal opinion of all involved that

games will not be repeated! ( actually this question is just plain silly- its

not going to happen-between you and me if Vlad does repeat wins he will make

himself and the match a laughing stock and also kill the goose that lays the

golden egg for the future!! I don't think he's that dumb!!)

q8 the answer to this MUST be that ChessBase will be represented in

Bahrain-preferably by you(-if not the Bahrainis will be insulted and there

will be no press sprecher for fritz-that is not part of the answer!) pls ad a

few details about yourself so I can build you up as a personality!

q9 I would say -truthfully-that the polls indicate fritz is the favorite but

you regard any outcome as a satisfactory scientific gauge of the current

relative strength of man v machine-remember only Kramnik and a computer have

ever beaten Garry in a match while only fritz has defeated Garry Anand and

deep blue before

q10 I would say that we are all striving to get a situation where the

computer plays for itself and is not advised or coached by humans as IBM was-

the restrictions are designed to achieve this-as I have said before when

Chinook dropped its entire openings book and played whole games on its own it

killed the human checkers opposition in a way it had never done before!! I

honestly feel that human input hampered previous programs by making them play

positions that did not suit them.

frankly if you programmed fritz to play modest moves like 1c3 and

1,,,c6-whatever vlads first move- in every game as white and black it is

hardly likely that Vlad would have worked out strategies in advance that

guaranteed victory-lets face it last time deep blues openings against Garry

were unpredictable and in some cases just plain rustic!

you guys at chess base need to be a lot more positive especially when

confronted by the press-everyone thought Kasparov wd win easily last time and

if he had drawn game 2 he probably wd have done and we would not be here at

all!! look on the bright side-this controversy is going to get us a hell of

lot more publicity-kc is trying to imply we are part of a fix-not true-none

of has done anything wrong-if we erred at all it was because I felt Kasparov

lost because of unfair conditions last time and I pushed the pendulum a

little too far the other way-but there is no hidden agenda-no conspiracy-we

are genuinely trying to get the best match and one where the computer really

is fully responsible for its own moves and clearly and publicly so!!

can you get me the next draft ASAP-and pls omit stuff we are no longer

intending to send

thanks

From: Raymond Keene To: Frederic Friedel

ok I found the ten questions on the kc website so no need to send them to

me-here are my responses which you are welcome to quote in as much or as

little detail as you like-I suggest a quick response to get a debate going!!

A) it should be noted that most of the conditions were NOT -I REPEAT- NOT

demanded by Kramnik they were VOLUNTARILY offered by me BEFORE I KNEW WHICH

PROGRAM WD BE THE CHALLENGER!!-I noted the unfair conditions under which

Kasparov labored in 1997 and I have developed over the intervening years my

own programme for leveling the playing field-I may have got it wrong but

these were my honest conclusions to get a real test between man and machine!

B) public opinion by the way-expressed in at least one website poll and

certainly the man in the street-still thinks deep fritz is the favorite!! I

also plan to conduct such a poll in the times nearer the date;

now to specifics:

1)I believe so

2)same version-if serious bug discovered arbiters and match committee will

rule-arbiters are Schiller and Calvo and probably one Bahraini computer

whiz-match committee yousuf shirawi lord Hardinge of Penshurst Lothar Schmid

and chairman Tony Buzan-good men and true!!

3)I don't know the answer to this one

4)I assume the machine program is designed to vary-it will also b e playing

on different hardware

5)I don't think so

6)only by suffering humungous levels of slaughter in their other games-they

cant win to order or so I understand-if they can this wd expose a weakness

in machine chess and is therefore of scientific interest!

7)can you answer that one

8)ditto-in any case you have to have a presence for pr!!

9)I think Kramnik is the favorite and will win by 4and a half to two and a

half-but the polls still make fritz the favorite-Garry did a very good job

in 1997 of convincing the world that computers were now better than the top

humans!!!!!!!

10)I think we all strove to get as level a playing field as possible and to

make it a real test of man v machine-if the machine has weaknesses which can

be exposed so be it-I think we all entered into this in good faith and I don't

think Kramnik will be able to pre-prepare-strange English-winning games.

hope that helps

ray

ps while developing my theories of the level playing field from 1997 onwards

I had always assumed Garry wd be the beneficiary-in fact I tried to persuade

him to play a program before playing a human but he overruled me and took on

Kramnik first!!

From: Raymond Keene To: John Fioravanti

thanks for your message and the good news. Kramnik has no colossal

advantages-I have merely sought to minimize the colossal disadvantages under

which Kasparov suffered for the last man v machine match. I have listed these

and the remedies in my spectator piece which you have seen.

any one who believes erroneously that Kramnik now enjoys colossal advantages

over the machine should be pointed I n the direction of my spectator

article-of course Kramnik should be allowed to see games by the program-the

program has analyzed already literally thousands of his games-of course there

should be rest periods-humans tire machines don't-of course Kramnik should be

allowed to play some game s in advance against the program-when he beat

Kasparov for the world title last year Kramnik had already played dozens of

games against the champ!

I am happy to speak to anyone who thinks Kramnik is being unfairly favored!!

best wishes

ray Keene match director

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Dear Ray,

Here are my thoughts on the Ten Questions. In some cases I have added my opinion in square brackets for you to contemplate. You should take these comments into consideration when formulating the replies. We don't want to run into open knives.

I would suggest you go through the material and then suggest some replies or remedies. Maybe the others (Matthias?) have some thoughts on the individual points. Probably it would be good to send a reply tomorrow.

BTW the giant Slashdot forum (www.slashdot.org) have picked up the story and will probably publish a link tonight. They contacted me with some questions. Slashdot has over 100,000 individual visitors per day. Well, at least everyone will know that the event is happening in Bahrain.

I am attaching the following as a Word file for the others. There my commentary is properly word-wrapped and in a different color.

(Begin Attachment}

RDK:

A) it should be noted that most of the conditions were NOT -I REPEAT- NOT

demanded by Kramnik they were VOLUNTARILY offered by me BEFORE I KNEW WHICH PROGRAM WD BE THE CHALLENGER!!-I noted the unfair conditions under which Kasparov labored in 1997 and I have developed over the intervening years my

own programme for leveling the playing field-I may have got it wrong but

these were my honest conclusions to get a real test between man and machine!

B) public opinion by the way-expressed in at least one website poll and

certainly the man in the street-still thinks deep fritz is the favorite!! I

also plan to conduct such a poll in the times nearer the date;

This is a preamble and could read as follows:

The rules for the Brains in Bahrain event were developed by me (RDK) over the years and as a reaction to the unfair conditions under which Garry Kasparov had labored in his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue. The Bahrain rules were an attempt to level the playing field. I may have got it wrong, but these were my honest conclusions for a genuine test between man and machine.

Answer to the questions:

1. Is it true that Vladimir Kramnik and his team will receive (or have already received) a copy of the Deep Fritz program that he will play against in Bahrain?

Yes, he has received a copy which was dispatched in the first week of August to his second, GM Miguel Illescas, in Barcelona.

2. Is this exactly the version that Kramnik will face, or can ChessBase modify it before the match? If ChessBase must submit the final version, as rumor has it, what will be done about any errors discovered after the program is submitted?

If serious errors are discovered in the software of hardware between now and the beginning of the match the ChessBase team may fix the problem, provided the general playing style of the program, as submitted to Vladimir Kramnik, remains unchanged. The computer team has to submit the corrected program to Kramnik and to the match committee.

3. We heard that the program's opening book can be modified. What percentage of the book is it possible to change in so little time?

Brain Games have agreed with the world champion that the ChessBase team will be allowed to add no more than ten moves to the openings book between games.

[This is, I believe, what Miguel is suggesting. It does seem a bit weird, since the book contains about two million moves. If you have to answer the percentage part of the question the answer is that it represents 0.000005% of the entire book]

4. What is to prevent Kramnik and all his GM assistants from finding literally hundreds of games in which Fritz can be beaten, and Kramnik repeating eight of these games in the match in Bahrain?

RDK: I assume the machine program is designed to vary-it will also be playing on different hardware

[Unfortunately the truth is that Fritz and all other top programs are pretty deterministic. They try to play the best move in each position, and their opinions on the best move do not vary between two computations. An identical copy of the program will (and should) come up with the identical move in almost all positions.

Last year in Dortmund Kramnik played against Deep Junior, winning in 33 moves. In a video interview for ChessBase Magazine 78 he admitted that he had had exactly the same game on his computer at home, the only difference being that he had required a few more moves to mate it on the tournament machine.]

5. The eight-processor machine Deep Fritz will be running on in Bahrain is probably faster than anything Kramnik will train with, but can't a slower machine imitate a faster one just by giving it more time to think on each move?

[The final machine will probably be three times faster than the fast dual processor Kramnik's team is using — in Bahrain we have an eight processor machine with slower processors and massive memory sharing. If they wait for nine minutes their copy of Deep Fritz will faithfully show them what the Bahrain machine will play in three minutes. They only have to do this for a few key positions in different lines they try out. Illescas and Kramnik know exactly when to do the nine-minute search and when to simply key in a series of moves, which any computer or human is sure to play.]

6. Is it true that there are a number of amateur chess players, rated around 2100, who would be able to beat all top programs under similar conditions?

RDK: only by suffering humungous levels of slaughter in their other games-they cant win to order or so I understand-if they can this wd expose a weakness in machine chess and is therefore of scientific interest!

[This is the weakest point. It is clear that the 2100 players spend hours, days and weeks working out the games they publish on a daily basis on the Internet. Worse still, they even use Fritz to work out the details of the games, and how to achieve the critical positions from different opening lines. The point is even if they have had to play 100 games to get the one win over Fritz they can then proceed to repeat this game any number of times against exact clones of the program. I have tested it: I can easily repeat most of the games these people publish against the programs they have used _ but not against other programs which vary slightly in their playing style. I do not know how to reply to this question.

It is not a matter of scientific interest to prove, in full public view, that two installations of the exactly same program will behave in exactly the same manner. We know this in advance, and a fair amount of effort is devoted to making sure any piece of software does not behave erratically.

The truthful answer to question 6 would be: yes, a dedicated 2100 player who has done thorough preparation over a month or more would probably be able to beat any of the top programs in an eight-game match by simply repeating prepared games _ provided he is playing against exactly the same program that he prepared with.]

7. Is ChessBase allowed to modify the openings or any program parameters between the games in order to avoid a repetition of games that Fritz has lost in previous rounds?

[I believe that Kramnik's team do not want any modification between the rounds, and Eric Schiller has proposed very rigorous rules to ensure that ChessBase doesn't "cheat" _ e.g. doing a bit comparison of the whole openings book between games.]

8. Will ChessBase take a team of programmers to Bahrain if they are not allowed to do anything during the three weeks they are there?

RDK: ditto-in any case you have to have a presence for pr!!

[This is also a problem. If it is clear to everyone that ChessBase may not touch the program between the games then it is silly to set up a "operations room" to look after the program, or to have programmers or openings book specialists travel to Bahrain if the rules say explicitly that they must do nothing at all while they are there. It would also be very cruel to them if they were forced to watch Kramnik repeat games he had prepared in advance.]

9. Does ChessBase believe that Fritz has a ghost of a chance of winning, or even drawing, the match under the current conditions?

RDK: I think Kramnik is the favorite and will win by 4and a half to two and a

half-but the polls still make fritz the favorite -Garry did a very good job in 1997

of convincing the world that computers were now better than the top humans!!!!!!!

[The general opinion in the expert forums is that under the current conditions Fritz has no chances to win. I am attaching today's postings in CCC on the subject below. ChessBase is a little bit more optimistic, but we have a sinking feeling every time we are confronted with new restrictions.]

10. Why did ChessBase agree to play a match under such conditions? Is ChessBase satisfied to take the worldwide publicity, even if the games are essentially pre-prepared by the opponent and their program is massacred?

RDK: I think we all strove to get as level a playing field as possible and to

make it a real test of man v machine-if the machine has weaknesses which can be exposed so be it-I think we all entered into this in good faith and I don't think Kramnik will be able to pre-prepare-strange English-winning games.

[Matthias and I were grilled today by the Heise journalist, whose article has appeared with the title "Unfair conditions for Fritz?" He kept asking me how we could have agreed to such conditions and whether we were interested in publicity at any cost. I said somewhat lamely that we had been invited to play a match against the world champion had had agreed to do so without understanding all the implications of the rules at the time. We were now trying to make the best of what we had, and believed that we did have some chances to acquit ourselves honorably.]

{Attachment Ends}

From: Frederic Friedel To: Eric Schiller

Hello Eric, really good to see you on the job.

Yesterday was a horror. I am very careful not to let the opinions of the relatively few in the chess forums sway my actions, but getting constant calls from the media was unnerving. Germany's largest computer magazine had grilled Matthias and me and had the story up before 10 a.m. In the afternoon Time magazine called from NY asking whether I had anything to say to the questions (I am in the process of providing them with general background for a story that will appear at the start of the match). Dominik Lawson will be coming to Hamburg to try some experiments with Deep Fritz. And on and on.

Anyway, here are some further comments from me, from my sickbed. They are marked with a double ** and are in blue.

2. Is this exactly the version that Kramnik will face, or can ChessBase modify it before the match? If ChessBase must submit the final version, as rumor has it, what will be done about any errors discovered after the program is submitted?

If serious errors are discovered in the software of hardware between now and the beginning of the match the ChessBase team may fix the problem, provided the general playing style of the program, as submitted to Vladimir Kramnik, remains unchanged. The computer team has to submit the corrected program to Kramnik and to the match committee.

Good, but I have a problem with the wording "general playing style". I suggest more specifically that the program must respond to a suite of test positions proved by the Arbiter in a manner consistent with pre-match testing. Any discrepancies would have to be explained to the satisfaction of the Arbiter and Kramnik Team. 

** What I think we should avoid is rules and wording that are obviously designed for a single purpose: to make sure the computer will repeat games. We should avoid wording that can be interpreted in this way.

3. We heard that the program's opening book can be modified. What percentage of the book is it possible to change in so little time?

I believe it is 10 ply, not moves. So Miguel advised. In addition, it can change the weighting of lines so that another variation, which is already in the pre-match book, is chosen. But no new analysis (outside the 10 ply per game) can be added. 

** Okay, I didn't know you and Matthias had agreed that CB can change all weightings. Probably ChessBase can live nicely with only being allowed to add five new moves to the book between games, i.e. go from 2,000,000 to 2,000,005. It will make an amusing anecdote in the history of chess and computer chess. 

9. Does ChessBase believe that Fritz has a ghost of a chance of winning, or even drawing, the match under the current conditions?

I shouldn't have an opinion, as arbiter, but I see it as unclear anyway. Will Kramnik crack the problem, or not? A repetition of the Kasparov debacle is unlikely, given the level playing field and their contrasting temperaments. In any case, the standard press answer is that the computer guys are trying to lower expectations!

** ChessBase is saying "we are going to Bahrain to win, we hope we will give him a good fight." I'm being very aggressive and positive in all interviews (on the strict instructions of Ray and Justin). It the chess players and discussion groups who have formed the universally pessimistic opinion. If we can make them eat their words it is great. If they were right we have a disaster.

I am attaching some Internet postings from a single day, just to give you a feel for the general mood.

Will Fritz sell; any fewer copies if it loses a reasonably close match? I doubt it. From a business standpoint, even ignoring the prizes, it makes sense, as long as the can't

repeat a winning opening situation is resolved.

** Naturally ChessBase will not sell more programs if it wins. The number of people who say "Wow, it beat Kramnik, then I must have it" is smaller than the number of people who say "If it beats Kramnik what's it going to do to me — don't you have an easier program?" I am not worried about this. I am worried about pre-prepared games, negative press saying the whole thing was a farce, just a meaningless PR stunt, and the sponsors being furious that they didn't get what they paid for.

I worry a lot, especially when I am ill.

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Below you can see my remarks in red, assuming you have HTML mail (yes, Ray, you do on AOL). As you can probably tell, I'm not the least bit concerned with any of this, assuming that we have indeed agreed, as my records indicate, that the weighting of the openings may be modified to choose a different pre-existing line.

I've sent this only to Ray, Matthias and Frederic, not to the Kramnik team, as I assume that this is what is desired.

If this is the best the critics can do, it will be smooth sailing indeed. This is all standard PR stuff, and in fact, it so happens that the truth works best and deals with all the issues.

There is no need to pretend to the press that no issues have to be worked out. Instead, point to the splendid cooperation and say that all details are being worked out satisfactorily. As indeed they will be.

I'm not sure I'll need to add anything tonight, until I get some feedback. If anything occurs to me, I'll send it later.

Much more worried about the clock question than this stuff!

Eric Schiller

Moss Beach, CA

The material below has been edited by Eric Schiller. His remarks are in red. Frederic's remain in blue.

Note: in this post, all quoted material is in olive color, new material in purple as throughout the posted document.

This is a preamble and could read as follows:

The rules for the Brains in Bahrain event were developed by me (RDK) over the years and as a reaction to the unfair conditions under which Garry Kasparov had laboured in his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue. The Bahrain rules were an attempt to level the playing field. I may have got it wrong, but these were my honest conclusions for a genuine test between man and machine.

Answer to the questions:

1. Is it true that Vladimir Kramnik and his team will receive (or have already received) a copy of the Deep Fritz program that he will play against in Bahrain?

Yes, he has received a copy which was dispatched in the first week of August to his second, GM Miguel Illescas, in Barcelona.

2. Is this exactly the version that Kramnik will face, or can ChessBase modify it before the match? If ChessBase must submit the final version, as rumor has it, what will be done about any errors discovered after the program is submitted?

If serious errors are discovered in the software of hardware between now and the beginning of the match the ChessBase team may fix the problem, provided the general playing style of the program, as submitted to Vladimir Kramnik, remains unchanged. The computer team has to submit the corrected program to Kramnik and to the match committee.

Good, but I have a problem with the wording "general playing style". I suggest more specifically

that the program must respond to a suite of test positions proved by the Arbiter in a manner consistent with pre-match testing. Any discrepancies would have to be explained to the satisfaction of the Arbiter and Kramnik Team.

3. We heard that the program's opening book can be modified. What percentage of the book is it possible to change in so little time?

Brain Games have agreed with the world champion that the ChessBase team will be allowed to add no more than ten moves to the openings book between games.

[This is, I believe, what Miguel is suggesting. It does seem a bit weird, since the book contains about two million moves. If you have to answer the percentage part of the question the answer is that it represents 0.000005% of the entire book]

I believe it is 10 ply, not moves. So Miguel advised. In addition, it can change the weighting of lines so that another variation, which is already in the pre-match book, is chosen. But no new analysis (outside the 10 ply per game) can be added.

4. What is to prevent Kramnik and all his GM assistants from finding literally hundreds of games in which Fritz can be beaten, and Kramnik repeating eight of these games in the match in Bahrain?

RDK: I assume the machine program is designed to vary-it will also be playing on different hardware

[Unfortunately the truth is that Fritz and all other top programs are pretty deterministic. They try to play the best move in each position, and their opinions on the best move do not vary between two computations. An identical copy of the program will (and should) come up with the identical move in almost all positions.

Last year in Dortmund Kramnik played against Deep Junior, winning in 33 moves. In a video interview for ChessBase Magazine 78 he admitted that he had had exactly the same game on his computer at home, the only difference being that he had required a few more moves to mate it on the tournament machine.]

Mooted by my note above on changing weighting.

5. The eight-processor machine Deep Fritz will be running on in Bahrain is probably faster than anything Kramnik will train with, but can't a slower machine imitate a faster one just by giving it more time to think on each move?

[The final machine will probably be three times faster than the fast dual processor Kramnik's team is using — in Bahrain we have an eight processor machine with slower processors and massive memory sharing. If they wait for nine minutes their copy of Deep Fritz will faithfully show them what the Bahrain machine will play in three minutes. They only have to do this for a few key positions in different lines they try out. Illescas and Kramnik know exactly when to do the nine-minute search and when to simply key in a series of moves, which any computer or human is sure to play.]

If Kramnik wants to buy an 8-cpu machine to prepare, he can. So the situation is not so bad. (OK, as a practical matter configuring such a machine would likely take too long, but it can be done in theory)

6. Is it true that there are a number of amateur chess players, rated around 2100, who would be able to beat all top programs under similar conditions?

RDK: only by suffering humungous levels of slaughter in their other games-they

cant win to order or so I understand-if they can this wd expose a weakness

in machine chess and is therefore of scientific interest!

[This is the weakest point. It is clear that the 2100 players spend hours, days and weeks working out the games they publish on a daily basis on the Internet. Worse still, they even use Fritz to work out the details of the games, and how to achieve the critical positions from different opening lines. The point is even if they have had to play 100 games to get the one win over Fritz they can then proceed to repeat this game any number of times against exact clones of the program. I have tested it: I can easily repeat most of the games these people publish against the programs they have used _

but not against other programs which vary slightly in their playing style. I do not know how to reply to this question.

It is not a matter of scientific interest to prove, in full public view, that two installations of the exactly same program will behave in exactly the same manner. We know this in advance, and a fair amount of effort is devoted to making sure any piece of software does not behave erratically.

The truthful answer to question 6 would be: yes, a dedicated 2100 player who has done thorough preparation over a month or more would probably be able to beat any of the top programs in an eight-game match by simply repeating prepared games _ provided he is playing against exactly the same program that he prepared with.]

Well, if the computer team can change opening weighting, it would require superhuman preparation.

7. Is ChessBase allowed to modify the openings or any program parameters between the games in order to avoid a repetition of games that Fritz has lost in previous rounds?

[I believe that Kramnik's team do not want any modification between the rounds, and Eric Schiller has proposed very rigorous rules to ensure that ChessBase doesn't "cheat" _ e.g. doing a bit comparison of the whole openings book between games.]

Well, I actually proposed that you can. Sorry I didn't cc you on the Matthias emails. So changing the weighting again gets everyone off the hook. The only "cheat" would be if more than the designated 10 ply per game were added to the book, or if the book had other changes.

8. Will ChessBase take a team of programmers to Bahrain if they are not allowed to do anything during the three weeks they are there?

RDK: ditto-in any case you have to have a presence for pr!!

[This is also a problem. If it is clear to everyone that ChessBase may not touch the program between the games then it is silly to set up a "operations room" to look after the program, or to have programmers or openings book specialists travel to Bahrain if the rules say explicitly that they must do nothing at all while they are there. It would also be very cruel to them if they were forced to watch Kramnik repeat games he had prepared in advance.]

Of course the tech team is needed in case of some non-program related bug and in any case such teams are generally present in other individual competitions. I don't understand why this is a problem. In addition,. Chessbase deserves the publicity it will reap, and will certainly want the programmers to be interviewed on major media? Rather silly question, I think.

9. Does ChessBase believe that Fritz has a ghost of a chance of winning, or even drawing, the match under the current conditions?

RDK: I think Kramnik is the favourite and will win by 4and a half to two and a

half-but the polls still make Fritz the favourite-Garry did a very good job in 1997

of convincing the world that computers were now better than the top humans!!!!!!!

[The general opinion in the expert forums is that under the current conditions Fritz has no chances to win. I am attaching today's postings in CCC on the subject below. ChessBase is a little bit more optimistic, but we have a sinking feeling every time we are confronted with new restrictions.]

I shouldn't have an opinion, as arbiter, but I see it as unclear anyway. Will Kramnik crack the problem, or not? A repetition of the Kasparov debacle is unlikely, given the level playing field and their contrasting temperaments. In any case, the standard press answer is that the computer guys are trying to lower expectations!

10. Why did ChessBase agree to play a match under such conditions? Is ChessBase satisfied to take the worldwide publicity, even if the games are essentially pre-prepared by the opponent and their program is massacred?

RDK: I think we all strove to get as level a playing field as possible and to

make it a real test of man v machine-if the machine has weaknesses which can

be exposed so be it-I think we all entered into this in good faith and I don't

think Kramnik will be able to pre-prepare-strange English-winning games.

[Matthias and I were grilled today by the Heise journalist, whose article has appeared with the title "Unfair conditions for Fritz?" He kept asking me how we could have agreed to such conditions and whether we were interested in publicity at any cost. I said somewhat lamely that we had been invited to play a match against the world champion had had agreed to do so without understanding all the implications of the rules at the time. We were now trying to make the best of what we had, and believed that we did have some chances to acquit ourselves honourably.]

I think Frederic has the right general approach: this is the first such match, has been the subject of much negotiation, and both sides are more or less satisfied with them (remember I'm assuming opening weighting modification). To me, the prize differentials are harder to explain.

However, from the Fritz Team I'd rather see a bit more of an attitude. "Hey, this is the best damn chess program in the world. We've proven it before and we'll prove it again and again! Last time the human got whipped, and it was, admittedly, a bit unfair. Now the playing field is more level. Maybe it tips a bit the other way, but that's just because the last match was such a joke. In any case, Fritz will do better against Kramnik than any other machine could, whether or not we win. As for our accepting the conditions, come on, think of the publicity for our great product!"

Will Fritz sell; any fewer copies if it loses a reasonably close match? I doubt it. From a business standpoint, even ignoring the prizes, it makes sense, as long as the can't repeat a winning opening situation is resolved.

In other words, honesty seems the best policy. You'd have to be ought of your mind to turn such an opportunity down!

Finally, if you are convinced after the match that the rules aren't fair, they can be adjusted for the next cycle, because Fritz intends to stay Number One!

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

Thanks. Similar problem here, I have no idea what the board, set , webcam web commentary etc. etc. are.

I assumed that as last time, we would have the awful Lost Boys stuff. But evidently not, that is good.

However, what we do have, I don't know. Perhaps indeed Fritz is providing?

So, I can only speak of desiderata, I don't know the score.

My preference would be for a Saitek or Chronos clock, and established sensory board, all plugging into the web coverage. To the best of my knowledge, this can't be done unless Saitek has an internet ready model, and I doubt that, though I have not checked. (I was a designer of the clock). If we have something, by all means let's use it. IN ANY CASE I want a human backup for transmitting moves and clock times. As a regular spectator, it drives me nuts when "technical failure" stops a game from being shown. Good old fashioned sneaker-ware will do, even a phone call if necessary.

My responsibilities are primarily as arbiter, and for that work I need nothing more than a web-connected PC. My preferred environment is OfficeXP, but I can manage in Office2000.

However, as Ray can attest, I'm usually called on to be a jack of all trades, computer hardware guru, software guru, internet guru etc. If it moves electrons, I can often help. If it moves fluids, flush it as I'm useless. I'm happy to do all that, but I have an absolute rule against working with ancient technology. My general rule is that you should always be exactly one generation behind state of the art. However, that does not include WinME!

A lot of little things are just practical matters. I need to have all relevant documents with me at all times. I can zip things onto a floppy or carry a zip disk, but those all require cooperation at the other end. This year, I just need to have access to a PC with USB port, as I plan to get some portable storage devices that, with USB, can connect to everything with no driver installation needed.

It is safe to assume that anything which isn't in the rules document, I know nothing at all

about, unless it is on the website. When Irazoqui was the other arbiter, he was handling all the technology. Now it is in my lap, and I don't even know what OS Fritz is running (neither do they, yet). So someone, probably neither of us, has to find out if BGN has an agreement with Fritz or anyone else to use technology for the board and clock. If so, the equipment should be delivered to me for testing ASAP. If not, then we have to figure out who in BGN is empowered to make deals, choose technology, and make a deal. How does all this fit in with Illescas's internet display technology, which I assume we are using (but if it is Java, note IE 6 incompatibility issue!).

It would be nice if this weren't a typical situation, but it is. The board/clock arrangements have to be delegated somewhere, or have been, and we need to find out who!

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I have just finished a long email to Pryhill about this. I have NO IDEA what arrangements are, have been or are possible regarding the clock. Since it was such a mess last time I assumed it would be taken care of. The DGT is a terrible clock, but if we have to use it we will.

As arbiter, I can just plunk down my Saitek and be done with it. But of course no net feed or anything like that. If the clock is part of the internet coverage, then it has to be compatible with whatever else is being used. I have not a single detail on any of this, and until I get the information I need I can't be of any use.

Please send me all agreements and documents which pertain to or make reference to playing equipment, then maybe I can do something.

Ray, I am completely in the dark about far too many things. I need to be brought up to speed on what arrangements exist. The only document I have are press releases and the rules.

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Don't worry, Ray has sent me everything and I am on it. If you have any particular concerns, just send the scenario and I'll make sure the rules are appropriate. I like your pro-active thinking on these things. Unless some issues arise where you, Frederic and Miguel and BGN can't agree, no cause for concern.

Ray wants me to react to the web stuff I haven't seen (just got back from teaching), and this evening I'll mull it over and have a response in the morning (your time) Saturday. So far, I've seen nothing in the emails that can't be dealt with quite easily.

As far as public perception goes, those who know me realize my obsession and I have been press officer for several WCs and a working journalist for 20 years. The perception angle is easy for me here (though my silence re the qualifier was deliberate, as I couldn't spin that one). We've got the best program and the best human (at least arguably, which is all that is needed). They are playing a match which is on the most level surface we can provide, given that this is the first truly professional title match.

Certain parties will do their best to trash the event. There are precedents in over-the-board play. The main thing is to keep a public, upbeat and energetic press presence. As an author and chess organizer, I've been the target of such campaigns. Truly annoying, but really, they never succeed. Bottom line is that the public wants this match, and through the extraordinary cooperation of so many parties, it is going to happen.

There will, of course, be problems. Always are. But the goal is to keep them from distracting your team or the other side, so you can just concentrate on the job at hand.

8 September 2001

From: Raymond Keene To: Frederic Friedel

Schiller has drafted a response which will come from him as chief arbiter and

me as match director-he has sent you a copy-I am deliriously happy with it-I

just need your permission to add the quote he wrote for you since we don't

want to put words in your mouth if you don't like them-

however I think it is a great and positive quote and Schiller's whole approach

has been outstanding-I would like to send it ASAP as it stands including the

chess base quote-pls confirm this is ok-

especially after Garry's vicious public attack on one of the most chess

supportive cities in the world last night I think Eric's tone of jovial

friendly rivalry-look after all we are all chessplayers trying to promote our

game bonhomie-is absolutely perfect!!!!

if I were Owen Williams -rather than savage sponsors and supporters at Garry's

behest I wd resign-he can no longer have any credibility left as an agent

trying to promote a sport after this silly outburst!!!!!!!!!! he really is

Garry's slave not his agent

ray

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric,

your proposed suite of test positions sounds like a fair and transparent approach to me.

The expected changes will be in the parallelization tuning, thus in the search. The evaluation function will remain unchanged. The engine which Vladimir and Miguel have since August 10 is practically already the match version regarding positional play and general playing strength.

The suite should be evaluation-oriented, it should test positional strength. If we adapt the parallelization algorithm on the match hardware, a pure tactics test will show _slightly_ (but not radically) different results, while the chess knowledge of the program obviously remains the same. The deviations could well be that some key moves are not found anymore while others are found faster, that lies in the quantum mechanics of a parallel search...

Hopefully we get access to the machine soon, that would ease some of my concerns,

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Raymond Keene, Eric Schiller

I like Eric's comments. My main point is that we get sufficient testing & tuning time on the match hardware. It sounds like a good and transparent approach if Eric develops a test suite to confirm that strength and style of the program remain basically unchanged.

Furthermore the full engine preparation disclosure is also an exciting and unprecedented experiment about the complexity of chess:

Is the game of chess rich enough for a match where one team knows every opponent move in advance once opening theory has been left?

I think that chess is complex enough. If we lose, it isn't. Nothing much to worry about,

From: Eric Schiller To: James Pryor

The official clock must be the one on the table used by the players. The internet relay person can use the second setup, and the clock there, hooked up to the net, can be manually adjusted by the arbiter to match the playing clock. A webcam can provide visual contact at all times.

If we have to, for some reason, make the offstage clock the official one (no!), we would at least need to adjust the time control to give an increment to compensate, and that's a mess we don't want.

If we accept that the time on the internet clock isn't accurate to the split second, which is no big deal, speaking from much experience as online spectator and commentator, then we can use any clock we like on stage, and I can bring Saiteks, which have the best display (warning David, I designed the thing, so it is my baby!) or Chronos. DGT is pure shit and doesn't keep time properly, we used last time because we didn't get delivery and test.

Now, the low-tech option of separate clocks won't be noticed, and frankly, I prefer this to monkeying with experimental hardware and software. Though I am hardly a Luddite in Ray's class, I don't think we need to be bleeding edge with the chess clock.

Maybe Saitek has a net-enabled clock, I don't know. Haven't contacted them because I was

worried about sponsorship issues.

I'm sure both sides will be happy with a normal chess clock onstage, unless CB has a product it is promoting.

As for the sponsorship issues, those worry me more. It seems that yet again (damn!) we see fundraising and operations meshed together. We need PCs with various tools. Microsoft has supplied us with software in the past. We need to get it and have to set up an office network, communications etc. This is not an Arbiter task, but I know where Ray will turn for technical stuff and already have everything worked out, in my head at least.

The rate sheet for ads is ridiculous. A year before the event, those figures make sense as negotiating openers. Cardoza Publishing was interested, but not at those prices (though Ray, remember the Chess City angle). Most companies will not commit serious resources a month before the event. I know this from experience. Most importantly, what Justin sent me didn't mention web ads, which are still a big draw.

I am willing to make a few contacts here, but I am a closer, not an opener, and don't do cold calling. If I have a sit-down with any major executive here I can sell a modest package. But I am not a fund-raiser, I'm a technocrat. I have good relations with many companies but would never approach them one month before an event and ask for significant money. Hardware, software and logistical support, yes. Money, no. Most companies can't even approve a deal in 30 days.

If you authorize me to do so, I will contact Microsoft and Hewlett Packard to obtain necessary hardware and software. Even that is not guaranteed, as there is no time for the company to exploit the publicity. I would have contacted MS months ago with an offer to go all XP and show off their new software, which launches October 25. Well, in fact I did make some preliminary contacts, but couldn't make an offer.

Ray and I have been through this so many times, and in each case the failure to make such deals in a timely fashion has screwed up something. Holding out for the big cash cow and letting everything else slide is just stupid, but common. At this point, you need to do triage. Make deals with suppliers to get what you need for free, forgetting money., Let the fund-raiser target other companies. Sure, the tech companies will benefit tremendously, but that just keeps the door open for future sponsorship of BGN events.

You are in a position of total weakness at this point, why fight it? It is simply too late to go far 6. Just protect the damned wicket!

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Here it is. Please send me an exact list of names and email addresses. I don't really have much of an online address book, I just respond to people who email me. Check carefully, there are a number of changes.

{Begin Attachment}

Braingames.net World Man vs. Machine Chess Championship

Statement by BGN Match Director Raymond Keene and Rules Commissioner Eric Schiller regarding the "10 Questions"

The rules for the Brains in Bahrain event were developed by Raymond Keene over the years and as a reaction to the unfair conditions under which Garry Kasparov had laboured in his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue. Because there is a lot of money at stake, $1 million, it was important to create as level a playing field as possible for this historic event. The details were worked out by representatives of the Fritz Team and Kramnik Team in coordination with Eric Schiller, our Rules Commissioner. The Bahrain rules were an attempt to level the playing field. We may not be perfect, and are still making adjustments, but these were my honest conclusions for a genuine test between man and machine.

An article on the Club Kasparov website posed ten questions on the match conditions. We are happy to provide answers to these, and any other questions which may arise. Sometimes questions from the public or press may address an area which has escaped our notice, in which case we can adjust the rules accordingly, but the following questions were already dealt with long before they were proposed. Specifically, we should point out that weeks ago the question of opening book modification were solved with exact terms and wording. So rest assured that we are on top of the issues and are happy to reply to the questions raised by Club Kasparov.

1. Is it true that Vladimir Kramnik and his team will receive (or have already received) a copy of the Deep Fritz program that he will play against in Bahrain?

Yes, he has received a copy which was dispatched in the first week of August to his second, Grandmaster Miguel Illescas, in Barcelona. The final version will be shipped to him this week, in accordance with relevant agreements.

2. Is this exactly the version that Kramnik will face, or can ChessBase modify it before the match? If ChessBase must submit the final version, as rumour has it, what will be done about any errors discovered after the program is submitted?

The program must respond to a suite of test positions proved by the Arbiter in a manner consistent with pre-match testing. Any discrepancies would have to be explained to the satisfaction of the Arbiter and Kramnik Team.

3. We heard that the program's opening book can be modified. What percentage of the book is it possible to change in so little time?

Brain Games have agreed with the world champion that the ChessBase team will be allowed to add no more than ten ply to the openings book between games.. In addition, it can change the weighting of lines so that another variation, which is already in the pre-match book, is chosen. But no new analysis (outside the 10 ply per game) can be added. That is an insignificant percentage.

4. What is to prevent Kramnik and all his GM assistants from finding literally hundreds of games in which Fritz can be beaten, and Kramnik repeating eight of these games in the match in Bahrain?

Because the Fritz Team can choose a different line of play in each game, this might work once, but is hardly worth the effort and will offer no advantage in the other 7 games.

5. The eight-processor machine Deep Fritz will be running on in Bahrain is probably faster than anything Kramnik will train with, but can't a slower machine imitate a faster one just by giving it more time to think on each move?

Why assume that World Champion Kramnik is testing on outdated equipment? He can get hold of the same kind of machine Fritz will use, if he chooses to do so. On the other hand, he knows that this is just a matter of speed. Different machines should come up with the same move, but it may take much longer on a weaker machine. The Kramnik team just has to give the machine more time per move in testing. It isn't for us to tell them how to optimize their preparation! Kramnik will win a MILLION DOLLARS if he succeeds. Investing in a little hardware hardly seems to high a price to pay. Even if he loses, his prize is very substantial.

6. Is it true that there are a number of amateur chess players, rated around 2100, who would be able to beat all top programs under similar conditions?

Since the computer team can change opening weighting, it would require superhuman preparation. Not going to happen in the next few years!

7. Is ChessBase allowed to modify the openings or any program parameters between the games in order to avoid a repetition of games that Fritz has lost in previous rounds?

Of course! But just the opening book, and it must choose another line that already exists the opening book as delivered before the match, can't add new lines. After each game 10 additional ply of analysis may be added.

8. Will ChessBase take a team of programmers to Bahrain if they are not allowed to do anything during the three weeks they are there?

Of course the tech team is needed in case of some non-program related bug and in any case such teams are generally present in other individual competitions. Consider the comparable sport of race car driving. There are rules governing adjustments they can make to the cars, and the rules are enforced. It is the same here. Chessbase deserves the publicity it will reap, and will certainly want the programmers to be interviewed on major media?

9. Does ChessBase believe that Fritz has a ghost of a chance of winning, or even drawing, the match under the current conditions?

The Match Director and Arbiter aren't supposed to offer predictions. However, both are on record as expecting a very close contest.

10. Why did ChessBase agree to play a match under such conditions? Is ChessBase satisfied to take the worldwide publicity, even if the games are essentially pre-prepared by the opponent and their program is massacred?

We believe we have made it clear that this scenario is impossible. It is as relevant as asking how we will act if a meteorite crashes onto the playing board. Any businessperson knows the value of worldwide media coverage and publicity not just for Fritz, but for the entire product line. Fritz is demonstrably the best program around. They have proven it time after time. Fritz's performance will no doubt delight and impress chess fans whether it wins or loses. Let's face it, you can't buy a Vladimir Kramnik for under 50 pounds! Fritz has trounced professional players all over the world. Most use it for training. Regardless of the result of the match, Fritz will be shown to the buying public and we expect that all chess fans will want to run out and buy a copy, even if it loses to the World Champion. However, why do you think that Kramnik can defeat Fritz convincingly, when no other Grandmaster has? In any case, ChessBase are going to benefit greatly from the match, and deservedly so.

This is the first contest between man and machine which is designed to be fair. We are all doing our best, knowing that in the future there will no doubt be some aspects of our experience on which we can improve. Discussion of these issues is interesting to the chess community and public at large, and during the event there will be ample time for discussions and in-depth interviews, so that each item can be explained. Right now, as surely you can appreciate, our goal is to simply make sure all the rules are in place and let both teams concentrate on their chess skills.

We look forward to an exciting match that will pave the way for regularly scheduled contests between the best human player and best chess program.

Journalists with questions pertaining to the match should contact: John Fioravanti or Hector Proud For further information on the Man vs. Machine: http://www.brainsinbahrain.com/

{End Attachment}

9 September 2001

From: James Pryor To: Raymond Keene

Ray I have heard back from Fredric and I'm afraid all is not well in the state of Denmark!! The original plan was as follows (as per the fax I sent to you on Friday night) Fredric would supply us with a feed from Fritz that would show us the board, Fritz's thoughts etc etc. AMX would then take this feed and incorporate it into the website and then give me a feed (on site) to put onto the large screens and monitors around the venue. AMX and Justin have not gone back to the Fritz team and Fredric thinks that now we have run out of time. AMX also told them that they had a different fall back solution but as you and I know, they have run out of money so my guess is that they don't or simply can't. I was banking on AMX being on-site (as did Byron). My solution (Fredric thinks this will work OK) We will need to have person (local Bahrain chess person) who will have to sit near to the stage so he (or she) can see the moves. He (or she) would then manually input the moves onto the computer. We then take a direct feed out of the computer and relay the graphics onto the large screens and monitors - that solves the on-site problem...however, it is going to cost us money!!! How the data will get to AMX in London (for the website) is another problem but one that can be solved pretty easily. I understand that Byron will be capturing the moves (as he is commentating) so hopefully that will work out OK - I will need to confirm with Byron. I am now going to explore the possibility ( and feasibility) of installing our own webcam (small camera) above the match board. We would then connect the feed from the webcam to a monitor backstage. This will then enable the person who will be inputting the data (information) on to the computer, to see what is happening without actually being on stage (or near it). We then have our own live pictures that can be used for the website. I am sure Byron will be able to manage this along with his commentating. This is not ideal, but a solution that will work. It is going to cost us more money and actually, is not our responsibility (it belongs to Justin and AMX). However, it will be egg on our face if we do not deal with it. Miguel's contact (as per the fax) has quoted us £20,000 plus flights and accommodation - I am sure we can do it ourselves for one fifth of the price (and hopefully find our own sponsor). I think that if we work with Eric on this (i.e. include his clock) we will be OK. These are only my initial thoughts. There is probably a simpler solution but for now, let us work with the above.

<irrelevant bit deleted>

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

This is conceivable, I suppose. Taking computers and humans out of book is something I do quite a bit, though not that radically. But unless he can win 8 games this way, and I don't see how given that you have 22 possible first moves and the usual exponential growth.

Opening preparation can, conceivably, deliver a good position or two. But how is this different from Kasparov's usual attempts to win the game by opening prep? OK, Vlad knows what move Fritz will choose the first time the opening is played.

Since you can choose a different opening each game, he' d have to come up with some tremendous prep to lead to good positions.

Naturally games that begin with h-pawn moves by Kramnik will make a rather silly impression on the public, but that isn't under our control.

I think this needs to be faced as a sporting challenge. If the program can be easily and consistently beaten with a few odd moves, I'd be very surprised.

In any match, opening preparation can lead to points. If Kramnik can come up with some scenario such that he can defeat every single opening Fritz can come up with, well, what's the problem?

Controlling the flow of the opening is something I work very hard at as player and coach, and in human games it is very important. But you have the means to control every other move.

I don't think I can comment further. Several approaches come to mind, but it is up to you to discover them (and of course my ideas could be utter rubbish). But given that you can change openings each game, you should be able to avoid this trap, which may not even exist.

Yes, you might lose one game if he comes up with a crack, but I don't think you risk more than that.

And remember, that unless the opening leads to a fatal result, it is still just a game.

In any case, without a supercomputer I doubt Vlad has the time to carry out the necessary research.

So those are my initial thoughts.

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Matthias is very concerned that Kramnik can crack the opening by means discussed in his letter. I didn't say this in my note, but of course if Vlad busts the program, he wins. This seems just nervousness, this scenario won't happen. But I'm strongly against modifying rules to take this scenario into account.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I agree with you-Vlad will not only look like an idiot he will give the game away if he beats it with 1,,,h5

chess is getting very paradoxical

idiots are beating computers with 1...h5

"Fischer" is beating short with 1...f6 and 2...kf7 and 3...ke6

where are we heading?

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Thanks. Yes, my role is often one of a buffer, and I'm comfortable with it. This is all tricky stuff, we are in new territory. Frankly, I'd be much more concerned if it were Garry instead of Vlad. Kramnik is not at all superstitious, and is unlikely to see patterns and conspiracies in random matters.

Instant messages are good for moving information, but should not be used for negotiating or discussions. Too "instantaneous".

Ideally, I'd like to see all of us have an MSN account if we get Microsoft to provide all the software we need for the match, as they usually do. BGN deeply needs an Information Technology infrastructure, and I'm trying to get one implemented.

The use of AOL's primitive email (which doesn't even include the original in replies) is driving me crazy. I put Ray on AOL years ago because he wasn't capable of handling more technical stuff, but it really is time for him to grow up and get some real tools. Ah well, just another challenge.

Don't worry about what the chess press writes for the next month. Stirring up controversy is what they love, and frankly, it helps promote the match. Don't look through their eyes, look through the eyes of their readers. You need a thick skin in the chess world. I know this all too well. I'll try to restrain Ray, who tends to react quickly and over-react.

From your standpoint, the world will see your baby in action, established as the best by test. In the end, you hope they will judge Fritz on their own machines, with purchased, registered copies. I don't think the result of the event will have much of an effect on public perception of the program. Most potential purchasers couldn't beat Fritz one time in a million.

10 September 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Thanks.

I know, my blood boils too. But long ago I learned that reacting is a losing proposition. It is easier for you, you at least have family around to help cushion the blow. Living alone makes it worse.

I get very upset at some of these things, but I have learned that most people have already formed an opinion one way or another, and usually based on wrong information. I don't care

what anyone thinks about me unless they have met me and know me.

If you react, you invite your enemies to continue to annoy you. One way to get back at them, and they hate this, is never to answer them directly, but to feed the information through their rivals. I use this technique a lot. Mig hates to see other journalists get exclusives on topics he has raised.

To take a concrete example (and remind you why I walk on egg shells around ChessBase people), CB lowered all of my ratings in their player encyclopedia. I have a peak there of 2270, every rating is wrong, sometimes by 100 points. Now, I could whine about their persecuting a critic. I don't. instead, I simply pointed out, very publicly, that the ratings are unreliable, offering my own example as proof. This means that all ChessBase rating-based statistics are useless bullshit. An action taken to annoy me has instead led to a total loss of credibility (not widespread, as I don't push the issue, especially now!) for their data.

So, whenever I'm asked about why certain CB people have written or said something about me, I just point to the ratings and say: "ask them". But I have never accused them of anything but sloppiness, though clearly my ratings were hand-modified.

Any time you say something negative, no matter how well motivated, people think less of you. Doesn't stop me from putting my foot in my mouth from time to time, but generally, I understand that my supporters far outnumber my critics, but they remain silent, and no reason they should get involved.

Remember what Spassky said some years back, that what you wrote was accurate enough but he felt that actions in the heat of battle shouldn't be permanently recorded and made the stuff of books. People forget all about the issues, but certain images remain on the basis of what you say.

The big problem for us is that we are not Hollywood Celebs or elected officials, and really are not such public figures that we should have to stand for this abuse. But in the minds of many we are such public figures, and so we have to put up with it as much as any actor or politician.

Better simply to accept the status of VIP and live with attacks. I just wish I (we?) had an income to match our "status". But people only see us in full wining and dining mode, can't really blame them.

Eric Schiller

From: James Pryor To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric Attached a file which is the floor plan for the venue - it is in AutoCAD but I'm sure you have this. It has changed very slightly (we have moved the press / production office on a little (1.5m towards the `general area'). It will give you a better feel for the place. Picture the whole thing as a tent, which it is. All the walls are going to be black. Backdrops will have graphics. I am meeting with David (Massey) in the morning. Will agree plan of action. Let you know James

{ATTACHMENT NOT INCLUDED. I could not handle AutoCAD format}

11 September 2001

The events of September 11 occupied all of our attention.

No significant emails were exchanged regarding the Bahrain event.

13 September 2001

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

Well, this proposal by Matthias would only apply in my opinion if the program can't play or if it is making some very obvious mistakes. I think that Kramnik Team should have the right to approve or ban any intervention or bug-fixing.

Also, it is very important to establish some deadline for the hardware to be selected so we can all have the real final version. I will come back to this point in a subsequent email.

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

Well, here are some of our comments on the rules:

Point 8.5.5

In my opinion while the program is able to produce a move there is no "technical or software failure" so I don't see the need to include this point 8.5.5 because it is very general and may induce to confusion.

Point 8.2.3

We should clarify what measure will be taken if the books are changed overstepping the agreed rules, what kind of penalty ¿losing the previous game?

Point 8.3.5

I think we don't need this point. If the position is winning for Kramnik there is no need to take any action.

Point 8.6.1

Thanks but I don't think Matthias will send us the opening book, just a little mistake :-)

Point 9

Very soon we will give BGN the final composition of our team

Point 17.1

Well, in case of illness I don't think forfeit should apply, there are many free days: it would be a case of "physical failure" :-)

In a next email I will point out some other important things.

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

We need tuning & testing on the target machine mainly before the first round without any discussion and fuzzing around. If something goes wrong between the rounds we'll explain what we are going to fix. Eric's tests will confirm that there is no change in playing style.

We kindly ask to get that confirmed in the rules as suggested.

Thanks,

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

Vladimir rang this evening-can you confirm to him and Miguel that all the rules are now under control and that there are no grey areas !! thanks very much

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

There are a few minor wording issues, raised only yesterday. I'm working on them. But to say that it is all under control is accurate. Specifically, I sent a message to both sides today, and the responses should enable me to propose language.

14 September 2001

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric,

thanks a lot for your feedback. Your task of finding a precisely defining language for those issues is not easy. I am relieved that you also speak the language of programmers. Lets work together on it,

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

The latest draft is enroute. I'm sure we can work out the wording. My PhD in linguistics is of more value than my computer knowledge. And I am the son and brother of attorneys. So much useless stuff in my head, nice to get something practical out of it :-)

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

I am sorry, I forgot to include a copy of this message for you. I attach the engine "Fritz Bahrain" which we received last month.

The answer from Matthias was that "Fritz Bahrain" is optimized against human, as I predicted to Vladimir. In my opinion is a very poor excuse.

By the way, Vladimir and I send you our condolences and solidarity for the 11th September tragedy.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

I have had telephone conversations with Vladimir and Frederic within the last 24 hours and I would like you -Eric- to confirm to all that there are currently no areas of conflict in the rules. in particular Frederic is concerned that they-chess base -will be able to configure deep fritz for a multiple processor as soon as they are aware of

which hardware they are playing on-meanwhile Vladimir is very concerned that neither you nor he has yet received a copy of the version of fritz which will actually play in Bahrain. as far as I understand it if you can confirm there are no outstanding rules disputes chess base will dispatch the final playing version to Vladimir and yourself tonight.

please treat this as a matter of urgency since we need to get the show on the road. however I trust all parties will be tolerant of international postal delays attendant on the curtailment and chaos of air traffic worldwide after

Tuesdays tragedy in New York.

please be aware too that a new spirit of international cooperation and consensus amongst civilized people is emerging as the prime benefit from the USA disaster-I would like top chess as the planets leading intellectual game and with the eyes of the world to be soon upon us- to set an example of cooperation in this respect and not to get mired in disagreement-thus establishing a reputation for ourselves as inveterate arguers at precisely

the wrong historical moment. maybe even Garry and Owen Williams will grasp this elementary public image point for chess when considering the separate matter of participation or otherwise in the democratically configured BGN qualifying cycle!!

Eric-over to you!

many thanks

ray-match director

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

I got the final remarks from them just in the last two days, and the rules will go out in a few hours.

There is no excuse for delay in communication, cyberspace has no speed limits.

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

when I referred to delay I was thinking more of a delay in the post if

ChessBase have to send out the program by mail-or is it sendable by

electronic means-anyway as far as you are concerned there are no areas of

unresolved dispute I presume

From: Eric Schiller To: All

Only the items in red have changed, except for a few typo corrections.

As soon as I get feedback or clearance from all 3 of you, we can finalize.

I did modify the Sept. 12 date to the 17th, as it is already the 14th. Of course, delivery of all materials earlier helps!

Small detail: to insure no disasters, we will use a little tow tech. At present, plans call for using a normal chess clock and the internet operators can manually update. Because the DGT is awful (as we found in London), I expect it will be either a Saitek or Chronos (partly depending on commercial considerations, of course. I was one of the designers of the Saitek). It is our intention to have the clock clearly on a webcam.

I am not at all clear on the set and board, as this is part of the internet coverage and will presumably be electronic. Frankly, my preference would be for a beautiful normal wooden set, but this isn't my call.

We can save some time if each of the principals installs Microsoft Netmeeting, which enables conferencing. I'm on MSN for instant messages Look forward to hearing from you!

Braingames.net Man vs. Machine

World Chess Championship 2000

Official Rules and Regulations

{NO CHANGES IN FIRST FOUR ITEMS}

5. Tournament Director and Match Committee

The tournament director for the match is Raymond Keene. The responsibility of the tournament director covers all aspects of the match not specifically delegated to the players, arbiters or match committee.

The match committee is responsible for ruling on appeals from delegations concerning the decisions of the arbiter or organizers. If a player wishes to appeal a decision, or make some other official complaint, they must submit a written appeal specifying the issue under dispute, the official ruling, and any comments or criticisms of that ruling, together with a requested specific remedy. The appeal should be filed as quickly as possible, but in any case not later than 2 hours following the conclusion of the game in which the incident occurred. If the incident occurred outside of a match game, the appeal must be filed not more than 6 hours before the scheduled start of the game, unless circumstances make that impossible. A quorum of three members is required for any action to be voted upon. [MUST THEY BE PRESENT ON-SITE?]

The match committee consists of :

· Chairman: Tony Buzan (England)

· Deputy Chairman: Lord Hardinge (Scotland)

· Grandmaster Lothar Schmid (Germany)

· His Excellency Yousuf Shirawi (Bahrain)

6. Arbiters

The Computer Challenge will be ruled and officiated by Arbiters. Their decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to the Computer Challenge and the Rules

shall, in the case of a dispute between Mr Kramnik and the Arbiters which cannot be resolved on the same day, be referred to an Appeals Committee established by agreement between the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding.

The arbiters for the match will be

· Dr. Eric Schiller (USA) will act as Chief Arbiter and Technical Arbiter

· Dr. Ricardo Calvo (Portugal) will act as Chess Arbiter

· at least one technical arbiter will be appointed by BGN

Two arbiters, normally including the Chief Arbiter, will be on duty at all times while a game is in progress. Deputy Arbiters may be added to assist with various tasks or be present if it is necessary for either Arbiter to leave the room. In the event an Arbiter is ill or unable to perform, a Deputy Arbiter will replace him for that game.

The duties of the arbiter include:

1. Securing and checking the playing equipment and playing site

2. Setting and verifying the proper functioning of the chess clock

3. Check that the demonstration boards are properly set up and functioning

4. Check the private on-stage rooms and the toilet.

5. At least one arbiter shall be present at the playing venue 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the game, to deal with any issues that may arise.

6. During the game, insure that all of the rules and regulations of the match are enforced

7. The arbiters shall be on duty at any time when a game in progress.

8. At least one arbiter shall be present on stage at all times during the game.

9. At least one arbiter shall remain in the venue for 15 minutes after the conclusion of play, to deal with any issues that may arise.

10. Arbiters will dress properly, i.e. in jackets and ties and suitable other garments, at all times when they are on duty.

11. Arbiters shall take no action to influence the result of any game, nor will they do anything to distract the players save when required to act by the rules and regulations.

12. Arbiters shall take action as required to reduce or eliminate noise in the playing hall.

13. Arbiters shall cooperate with security personnel to identify spectators who have violated rules.

7. Time Control

1. In each game the Players shall each have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter.

8. Specific rules for use of the computer

The following rules apply to the computer hardware, software and wetware (human persons assisting the machine):

8.1 The computer Operator

{NO CHANGES}

8.2 Opening Books

1. The Fritz Team may prepare specific opening variations for use in the match, and program these into a database ("opening book") which the computer may consult during the game. The opening book may contain moves which the computer should or should not play in given circumstances, and may contain instructions ("weightings") that advise the program which moves to choose.

2. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program.

3. At the conclusion of each game the Arbiters will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and Arbiters per section 8.6. If they find any discrepancies, the Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiters.

4. If a violation of this rule is determined by the Arbiter, the penalty may include loss of the game.

8.3 Endgame Tablebases

{NO CHANGES}

8.4 Draw offers

{NO CHANGES}

8.5 Software or Hardware failure

Software or hardware failure is defined as the inability of the program to deliver a legal chess move to the operator.

1. In the event of an obvious software or hardware failure, the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it.

2. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the arbiter will reactivate the clock.

3. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play. The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik.

4. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game.

5. If the program is modified in any way, the Arbiters will conduct a series of tests to determine whether the recompiled program evaluates positions in the same way, applies the same chess knowledge, tactical speed and overall playing strength. If the Arbiters determine that the program does not play the same way as the version used in a previous game, the modification may be rejected and the Fritz Team must play with the version used for the previous game. Changing the choice of opening as per

8.2 is specifically excepted from this rule.

6. If the Fritz Team detects any technical problem with the software either during or before play that program failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped, in which case the procedures above apply.

8.6 Post-game confirmations

{NO CHANGES}

8.7 Delivery of software

1. The final version of the program, including endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 17, 2001. No modifications can be made to the program after that date except with the explicit permission of the Kramnik Team.

2. The Fritz Team will cooperate with the Kramnik Team to insure that the software can be properly tested by the Kramnik Team.

3. Any concerns on the part of Mr. Kramnik will be delivered to the Technical Arbiter with a copy sent to the Fritz Team.

9. Players and their accompanying persons

The following persons are official members of the Kramnik Team and Fritz Team. They will have access to the VIP hospitality area and press areas.

1. The Kramnik Team shall consist of:

· World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (Player)

· Miguel Illescas (Manager)

· Additional persons to be named by September 17.

2. The Fritz Team shall consists of:

· (Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· Frederick Friedel (Manager)

10. Playing Conditions

{NO CHANGES}

11. Toilet and refreshment facilities

{NO CHANGES}

12. Player responsibilities

{NO CHANGES}

13. Drawing of lots

{NO CHANGES}

14. Opening and Closing Ceremonies

{NO CHANGES}

15. Press Conferences

{NO CHANGES}

16. Photography

{NO CHANGES}

17. Illness and circumstances beyond the control of the organizers

1. If a player is unable to complete or play a game due to illness, the player shall forfeit the game. [KRAMNIK REQUESTS REVISION]

2. In the event a game is cancelled due to reasons beyond the control of the organizers, it shall be rescheduled for two days after the final scheduled game of the match.

3. In the event a game in progress must be interrupted for reasons of health, security or in the event of power failure, the Tournament Director shall determine the appropriate action depending on the circumstances. The players may appeal this decision at any time prior to the resumption of play, or within four hours should the Tournament Director decide to annul the game.

4. It is recognized that international circumstances may require adjustments to playing schedule and conditions. In all cases the Players shall be kept fully informed and consulted.

18. Official Language

{NO CHANGES}

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

various points in response

1 I would have thought as a matter of sheer common sense that Kramnik should

definitely not get the openings book-that seems fundamental to me but of

course it depends on what has actually been agreed

2 I believe the contract gives me full powers to act in case of extraordinary

situations war etc-fortunately the Bahrain regime finally came out tonight

with a comprehensive statement in full support of the USA position

3 do make sure that chess base send out the fritz copies to you and Vlad

ASAP Vlad has been sent an advance copy but has told me it is rubbish and he

wants the genuine article

4 I assume we have sorted the Wüllenweber multiprocessor point which seem to

be causing the trouble

From: Eric Schiller To: Raymond Keene

Well, "we" have nothing to do with Fritz's hardware trouble. It is their decision to use such

advanced hardware. Personally, I would have used a state of the art PC and set the playing field as Man vs. common Machine. Otherwise the event risks becoming a hardware rather than software test. But this time, anyway, we have what we have.

A month should be enough for debugging, but the problem is that any changes that alter play would be a violation.

I agree on opening book, but one of the emails indicated it. So I'm just waiting for confirmation.

I have no doubt that initially Bahrain will be on our side, and of course the Saudis will. If action is confined to Afghanistan, no one will care. Taliban is a pariah even in most Arab countries. But if Syria is involved, or if Saudi Arabia is a major staging area for the attack as in the Gulf War, we are going to be in a hot zone.

From pictures, the playing side is adjacent to the water. Security will have to take that into account. If Bahrain sides with USA, they will be a target for terrorists. Not you and me, but the event itself would be a natural target for any terrorist group.

Personally, I think it is too soon to worry about these things. Once the shooting starts, and I expect is imminent, the lines will be drawn and things will be clear. We go forward, but must keep in mind all the scenarios, from a quick decisive war (not going to happen) to an all-out firefight erupting in the gulf in mid-match.

Fortunately, we are not concerned with people traveling to the match. If it were Microsoft paying, not Bahrain, we could switch the whole thing to the net easily enough, just need arbiters at both locations. As long as there is money, there is flexibility.

I am quite serious about needing personal security or staying bunkered in the playing site hotel. I think only you, me and Vlad would be targets. Remember, Russia will come down hard, and crude, in a war of revenge in Afg. We don't need to panic or over-react, but must keep an eye on reality. In the end, we just have to hope the barbarians don't see the match as a target. It will be nearly impossible to stop them if they do. That doesn't frighten me, but we have to see what the situation is in a week to ten days.

<discussion of world situation deleted>

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

In general the rules look fine to me.

As indicated already, we need to optimize = recompile the engine (basically the parallelization algorithm) on the target machine. Fritz7 has never been tested on anything higher than a dual.

To accomplish this, I suggest the following change:

8.1: The final version of the program, including endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 17, 2001. As soon as the original match hardware is available, the Fritz team will get one working day to further test and optimize the software on that machine. Those optimizations must not change the chess knowledge and playing style of the program. It is however understood, that, since small changes to the parallel search algorithm are expected, minor changes in tactical solution times and evaluations will arise. The Technical Arbiter will receive the recompiled program and confirm this with a series of test positions of his discretion.

Furthermore, contrary to Kasparov's and Mig Greengard's demagogies, I strongly disbelieve that the Kramnik team intends to prefabricate games relying on the natural determinism of the program, because scrutinizing the strategical weaknesses will be more than enough. However the small adjustments in the parallel search are a good defense against prefabrication and should be argued as such,

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

OK, though I still don't like the term "playing style" as it is hard to define. Still, it isn't that important, we simply have to agree on the terms. I'll wait for Miguel's reaction to the suggestion.

Ray and I understand that the parallel CPU version needs tweaking. At the same time, Vladimir has to get a copy of the program. So this area requires patience and understanding. We can't make him wait too long.

I couldn't install the Bahrain-Fritz version in CB on my Win2000 machine. I just stuck it in the engines folder and used with CB. Should I install on Fritz? Will it work only in the parallel machine?

I will test Deep Fritz under WinXP today. I had to borrow a copy, as I own only the normal version. (I am generally religious about not borrowing software, but I'm sure you don't mind in this case).

16 September 2001

From: Eric Schiller To: Miguel Illescas

Just checking on how you felt about CBs proposed language in section 8. Otherwise I think it is ready to go.

As you know, we live in times where circumstances change daily. Like most Americans who can, I will resume normal activities tomorrow. I will wait a week or two before contacting the State Department about Bahrain. I realize that if Russia attacks Afghanistan, then prominent Russians will have additional security concerns. Ray/BGN seem to be taking the right approach: go forward until there is some clear reason to change plans. That could come at any moment, or we might all get through this. My personal view is that we are out of book and must make careful deliberate moves. It is possible that by the end of the week every terrorist in the world will be dead. It is also possible that with a week we will have a world war. It is possible that nothing will happen for months. So we just need to improvise, and keep in touch. My perspective is, of course, that of an American. Perhaps for the first time.

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Latest draft coming soon. Just noticed the "fuzzing". Should be "futzing" Must be VERY careful with consonants there :-)

From: Eric Schiller To: All

I need just a few answers to outstanding questions, and the document is ready for final haggling...

1. Exact prizes (including relevant currency)

2. Exact name of competition

3. The constitution of each team, or parameters for the teams. No names are needed, just how many should be considered part of the team, if there is some limit.

4. Status of delivery of items

Many things are now under "circumstances beyond our control", and that is not a matter of match regulations, but I understand are part of the agreements between players and BGN. I will have to think of potential interruptions and so on, but thinking is all we can do. I'm sure you all understand that some improvisation will take place.

<discussion of world situation deleted>

17 September 2001

From: David Massey To: All

All,

While I understand the concerns raised in John Henderson's email and the issues raised (especially in view of the U.S. presence in Bahrain), I do not agree that we should postpone the match.

Last weeks attack was an attack on our way of life. If it causes us to cancel/postpone events such as the Man vs Machine challenge then it has succeeded.

We should of course continue to review the situation, and liaise with our hosts on this matter (and the issue of enhanced security). I have no issue with changing my mind if events change the situation at a later date.

As Mao said, the first object of terrorism is to terrorize. If it fails to do that we are well on our way to defeating it.

And to conclude, I might add that personally I am more at risk from my own driving than I am from international terrorists.

I welcome comments on the above.

Regards,

From: Justin Ricketts To: David Massey

David,

I agree entirely (although I haven't seen you drive?).

I have discussed this briefly with Yousuf Shirawi and his current view is to continue as planned. Bahrain are obviously deeply concerned by last weeks events (and the likely aftermath) but seem to share the sentiments of your e-mail.

That being said...some thought should go into a contingency plan in case the situation does worsen. Again, I have discussed this briefly with Yousuf and it appears that the only option we would have is to postpone and not to re-locate). Yousuf has advised me that this is a decision that would come from the Amir. Clearly, we would need to get the support of both the Fritz and Kramnik teams.

Kind regards

From: Jeremy Hanley To: All

David - et al.

I thoroughly agree with you - it is vital that the situation should be monitored constantly, and I suspect that Bahrain's proximity to Iraq is as important as Afghanistan. The events of last Tuesday have changed the world we live in, and we must be flexible and ready to make the necessary decisions when our host dictates. We should not initiate postponement but show our understanding and support to the Emir if needed. Much could happen between now and then, and Bahrain holds a strategic importance beyond its size, as the American forces well know. If Bahrain is needed for weightier issues than, even, Man v Machine, I hope the world will reward Bahrain after the event by supporting our great tournament wholeheartedly.....

Yours, Jeremy

From: Miguel Illescas To: Eric Schiller

Hi Eric,

as you say we have no other option but assume that the match will take place. So, in order to have a final set of rules, we propose the following:

Point 8.1: we agree on that, lets make sure that the version is delivered today, in a couple of days it can be physically in Barcelona; the rules may say 19th of September. Also the hardware should be available before 30th of September as latest. By that date an official announcement of the hardware provider must be done even if it means that Fritz will have to run in a less powerful machine. When the software is adapted to the target machine it should be sent again to Kramnik's team and the arbiters and that copy should be really final.

"Matthias wrote"

8.1: The final version of the program, including endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 17, 2001. As soon as the original match hardware is available, the Fritz team will get one working day to further test and

optimize the software on that machine. Those optimizations must not change the chess knowledge and playing style of the program. It is however understood, that, since small changes to the parallel search algorithm are expected, minor changes in tactical solution times and evaluations will arise. The Technical Arbiter will receive the recompiled program and confirm this with a series of test positions of his discretion.

Point 8.5.6: we agree also on that with some additions: Fritz team will have to explain in a very precise and understandable way what is the nature of the technical problem, why they need to fix it and so on. The repair should take place in presence of the technical arbiter. Only very obvious bugs or those related with parallelisation will be corrected; those connected with chess playing strength or style will not be corrected.

"Matthias wrote"

8.5.6 "If the computer team during or before the match detects any technical problem with the software and or the hardware it may fix this problem between or before games by recompiling, provided the general playing style of the program remains unchanged. The computer team has to submit the corrected program to Mr. Kramnik and the chief arbiter. The chief or technical arbiter will confirm with a set of test positions that the evaluation, chess knowledge, general tactical speed and playing strength of the program remain nearly unchanged with respect to the version submitted before the match. Tuning the parallel search algorithm on the exact match hardware before the first game is defined as solving a technical problem."

Also we would like to point that if any of the dates or agreements are not fulfilled in time then we understand that the full agreement and this regulations are not in power anymore and should be renegotiated again.

Please, confirm agreement on the rules and delivery of the version today.

Many thanks,

From: David Massey To: Eric Schiller

Eric,

The Kramnik camp is agitating for a final version of Fritz.

Frederic says they are waiting for a ruling from you as to what happens if the software doesn't work out of the box on the hardware supplied in Bahrain (which we know it won't).

Speaking as someone who knows little about technology and less about chess, it seems to me to be farcical if the match doesn't happen because the Fritz team is not permitted to fix a technical hitch. Provided they do not interfere with the "thinking" of the software they should be allowed to tweak it.

Anyway, can you rule on the subject and email both of them ASAP please to avoid another diplomatic incident?

On another subject I am keen for me and Ray to talk to you and Hal about ICC/BGN. It would be cheaper for us to pay for Hal to come to London. But am I right in supposing that he is less than inclined to travel at present?

If so I am happy for us to come out to see you - possibly the last week in September. Ritz Carlton in Half Moon Bay sounds great.

I can be contacted on my cell phone +44 7885 331817 at any time (it is on all the time) so don't worry about calling me this evening UK time if you want to discuss.

Looking forward to meeting you soon.

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Justin Ricketts

Justin,

it goes without saying that you have our full support to postpone to whatever date the Emir and everybody else finds practicable. It would be a pity if the match went by in the din of war without getting the attention it deserves,

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Miguel Illescas

Hi Mike,

your comments seem reasonable to me. We'll prepare shipment of the program right away and keep you informed about it,

From: Raymond Keene To: Eric Schiller

official name of event-I suggest you go with

brains in Bahrain

man v machine

a brain games event

as far as delegations are concerned Dawn Conlon will know or sze in the BGN

office-I will ask them to get this information to you as soon as possible-it

may be that the two sides have not yet finalized this however!

From: Eric Schiller To: All

Latest below, changes in red. Except for section 8 there aren't many. There are still some gaps in the minor issues of team composition, but that is a matter less for the rules than for arrangements between BGN and the players. The title is from RDK.

Approve (or not) this set, let me know, I will send a tamper-proof PDF for signature.

Eric Schiller

Moss Beach, CA

Brains In Bahrain

Man vs. Machine

A Brain Games Event

Official Rules and Regulations

1. Structure of the match

1. The match shall consist of 8 games, with players alternating colours each round.

2. The winner of the match is the player who scores 4.5 or more points.

3. In the event that the Computer Challenge is decided before the eight games set out in paragraph 1 above have been played, the Players will continue to play until the conclusion of the eighth game or offer their services to Braingames in any way agreeable to both parties.

4. In the event of tie, no tie-breaks or further games will be played.

2. Prizes

1. The prize fund for the match is one million United States Dollars.

2. If Mr. Kramnik wins he will receive $1,000,000 and the Fritz Team will receive …

3. If the match is drawn $800,000 if he draws and Fritz Team will receive $200,000

4. If Fritz wins the Fritz Team will receive $400,000 and Mr. Kramnik will receive $600,000.

5. Prizes shall be awarded at the prizegiving, on 1 November 2001 at a place and time to be agreed upon.

3. Schedule

11 Oct Thursday 12 Friday 13 Saturday 14 Sunday 15 Monday 16 Tuesday 17 Wednesday

Arrival in Bahrain Opening Ceremony Free Day Game 1 Free Day Game 2 Free Day

      Start 15:00   Start 15:00  

  Exhibition Opening   Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  

  Cocktail Party   Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins  

18 Thursday 19 Friday 20 Saturday 21 Sunday 22 Monday 23 Tuesday 24 Wednesday

Game 3 Free Day Game 4 Free Day Free Day Free Day Game 5

Start 15:00   Start 15:00       Start 15:00

Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  Proposed opening of the Bahrain Mind Sports Centre Islamic Symposium     Finish 21:00

Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins       Press Conference - 15 mins

25 Thursday 26 Friday 27 Saturday 28 Sunday 29 Monday 30 Tuesday 31 Wednesday

Free Day Game 6 Free Day Game 7 Free Day Game 8 Free Day

  Start 15:00   Start 15:00   Start 15:00  

  Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00   Finish 21:00  

  Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins   Press Conference - 15 mins  

1 Nov Thursday 2 Friday 3 Saturday 4 Sunday 5 Monday 6 Tuesday 7 Wednesday

Prize giving Ceremony Departure          

1. Scheduled games will be played at 3:00 PM _ 9:00 PM local time at the Royal Meridien Hotel Bahrain, on the following dates:

I. Sunday, October 14

ii. Tuesday, October 16

iii. Thursday, October 18

iv. Saturday, October 20

v. Wednesday, October 24

vi. Friday, October 26

vii. Sunday, October 28

viii. Tuesday, October 30

2. If a game is adjourned (see section 4), it will resume at 3:00 PM on the following day. Play will continue for two hours (until 5:00 PM) , after which there will be a two-hour break.

3. The third playing session will commence at 7:00 PM and continue for two hours until 9:00 PM, at which time the game will be adjourned again, with Mr. Kramnik having the option of sealing the move or requiring Fritz to do so.

4. In the event that a afternoon session is delayed, the arbiters may postpone the start of the evening session at the request of Mr. Kramnik, but not later than 2 hours after the conclusion of the previous session.

5. Games which are adjourned after three sessions (scheduled and two adjournment) have been played will be continued on the next free days. Earlier games take precedence over later games.

4. Adjournments

3. 1. Mr Kramnik shall have the exclusive right to adjourn any scheduled game at any time after at least 56 moves have been made by each player, or after 6 hours have elapsed since the clocks were started for the game

2. When the game is adjourned, the Player whose clock is running will write legibly write an unambiguous legal move on a form provided by the arbiter. The Player will fold the form and place it in a box provided by the Arbiter. which will be immediately locked. The box will remain in the custody of one Arbiter, with the other Arbiter having custody of the key. Can Fritz print out the move? Avoids any transcription error.

3. Mr. Kramnik may choose whether to adjourn when it is his turn to move or on Fritz's turn.

4. In the event Mr. Kramnik chooses to adjourn the game before 6 hours of play has elapsed, the clock time at adjournment will be the time the move was sealed.

5. Tournament Director and Match Committee

The tournament director for the match is Raymond Keene. The responsibility of the tournament director covers all aspects of the match not specifically delegated to the players, arbiters or match committee.

The match committee is responsible for ruling on appeals from delegations concerning the decisions of the arbiter or organizers. If a player wishes to appeal a decision, or make some other official complaint, they must submit a written appeal specifying the issue under dispute, the official ruling, and any comments or criticisms of that ruling, together with a requested specific remedy. The appeal should be filed as quickly as possible, but in any case not later than 2 hours following the conclusion of the game in which the incident occurred. If the incident occurred outside of a match game, the appeal must be filed not more than 6 hours before the scheduled start of the game, unless circumstances make that impossible. A quorum of three members is required for any action to be voted upon.

The match committee consists of :

· Chairman: Tony Buzan (England)

· Deputy Chairman: Lord Hardinge (Scotland)

· Grandmaster Lothar Schmid (Germany)

· His Excellency Yousuf Shirawi (Bahrain)

6. Arbiters

The Computer Challenge will be ruled and officiated by Arbiters. Their decision regarding any interpretation of any of the rules of chess pertaining to the Computer Challenge and the Rules shall, in the case of a dispute between Mr Kramnik and the Arbiters which cannot be resolved on the same day, be referred to an Appeals Committee established by agreement between the parties and whose decision shall be final and binding.

The arbiters for the match will be

· Dr. Eric Schiller (USA) will act as Chief Arbiter and Technical Arbiter

· Dr. Ricardo Calvo (Portugal) will act as Chess Arbiter

· at least one technical arbiter will be appointed by BGN

Two arbiters, normally including the Chief Arbiter, will be on duty at all times while a game is in progress. Deputy Arbiters may be added to assist with various tasks or be present if it is necessary for either Arbiter to leave the room. In the event an Arbiter is ill or unable to perform, a Deputy Arbiter will replace him for that game.

The duties of the arbiter include:

1. Securing and checking the playing equipment and playing site

2. Setting and verifying the proper functioning of the chess clock

3. Check that the demonstration boards are properly set up and functioning

4. Check the private on-stage rooms and the toilet.

5. At least one arbiter shall be present at the playing venue 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the game, to deal with any issues that may arise.

6. During the game, insure that all of the rules and regulations of the match are enforced

7. The arbiters shall be on duty at any time when a game in progress.

8. At least one arbiter shall be present on stage at all times during the game.

9. At least one arbiter shall remain in the venue for 15 minutes after the conclusion of play, to deal with any issues that may arise.

10. Arbiters will dress properly, i.e. in jackets and ties and suitable other garments, at all times when they are on duty.

11. Arbiters shall take no action to influence the result of any game, nor will they do anything to distract the players save when required to act by the rules and regulations.

12. Arbiters shall take action as required to reduce or eliminate noise in the playing hall.

13. Arbiters shall cooperate with security personnel to identify spectators who have violated rules.

7. Time Control

1. In each game the Players shall each have to make 40 moves in two hours followed by 16 moves per hour thereafter.

8. Specific rules for use of the computer

The following rules apply to the computer hardware, software and wetware (human persons assisting the machine):

8.1 The computer Operator

1. The Fritz Team will designate an Operator and up to three Reserve Operators.

2. The Operator is the only person who may interact with Fritz during the game.

3. The Operator may not interact with Fritz while Mr. Kramnik's clock is running.

4. The Operator may adjust the clock times used by Fritz only within 15 seconds of Fritz's clock being activated.

5. The Operator may be replaced by a Reserve Operator should the Operator be unable to perform for any extended period of time. Any replacement of Operator must be authorized by one of the Arbiters.

6. The Operators and Reserve Operators will take all reasonable measures to insure that their activities do not distract Mr. Kramnik.

8.2 Opening Books

1. The Fritz Team may prepare specific opening variations for use in the match, and program these into a database ("opening book") which the computer may consult during the game. The opening book may contain moves which the computer should or should not play in given circumstances, and may contain instructions ("weightings") that advise the program which moves to choose.

2. During the match, the opening book may not be modified, except that up to 10 ply of additional moves may be added in the opening variation of the game which has most recently been played (not counting adjournment sessions) and the weightings of specific moves may be modified so that the different variations, already present in the opening book, will be preferred by the program.

3. At the conclusion of each game the Arbiters will attempt to replicate the opening of the game on a computer which has the opening book and program as delivered to the Kramnik Team and Arbiters per section 8.6. If they find any discrepancies, the Fritz Team is required to explain these to the satisfaction of the arbiters.

4. If a violation of this rule is determined by the Arbiter, the penalty may include loss of the game.

8.3 Endgame Tablebases

1. The use of a database of endgame positions ("Tablebase") is permitted only if the tablebase contains positions with a total five total pieces or less, including kings.

2. When Fritz identifies the board position in a tablebase, it must inform an Arbiter, who will then stop the clocks.

3. In the presence of the Arbiter, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik that the position has been located in the tablebase.

4. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Fritz, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue, unless Mr. Kramnik chooses to resign.

5. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as winning for the side played by Mr. Kramnik, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. The game will continue.

6. If the position is evaluated by the tablebase as a draw, the Operator will inform Mr. Kramnik of that fact in the presence of the Arbiter. This will constitute an offer of a draw. The game will continue, unless the offer is accepted prior to the completion of Mr. Kramnik's next move.

7. It is recognized that the program will access tablebases in its calculations. Rules 8.2 through 8.6 apply only when the position on the board is present in the tablebase.

8.4 Draw offers

1. Mr. Kramnik may offer a draw at any time, regardless of whose turn it is. The Operator is authorized to accept or decline the draw on behalf of Fritz.

2. The Operator may offer a draw on behalf of Fritz, however a draw may not be offered unless a previous offer by Mr. Kramnik has been declined.

3. If Mr. Kramnik feels that the position is clearly drawn, he may notify the Arbiter and the Operator that he is making a claim of "technical draw". The Arbiter will stop the clock. Mr. Kramnik will then explain his reasoning, and the Operator is obliged to accept the draw unless Fritz can demonstrate that in the previous ten moves, progress has been made.

4. The Arbiters will determine the validity of the claim, and their decision is subject to appeal by the Match Committee. Should the Arbiters uphold the claim, the game will be declared drawn. If the Arbiters reject the claim, then the game continues.

5. During the deliberations regarding a technical draw, the clocks will remain stopped. In the event the Arbiters reject the claim, the penalty will be deduction of the lesser of 5 minutes, or 10% percent of Mr. Kramnik's remaining time. In the event a second claim of a technical draw is rejected in the same game, a 25% penalty will be assessed.

6. The offer of a draw will be signalled by a device activated from the chessboard area and by a traditional oral offer. The Arbiter may activate the device if a draw is offered under 8.4.3. Ideally, the device will show who made the draw offer, the time it was made, and whether the draw offer is a normal one or a technical one.

8.5 Software or Hardware failure

Software or hardware failure is defined as the inability of the program to deliver a legal chess move to the operator.

1. In the event of an obvious software or hardware failure, the arbiter will stop the clock and give the Fritz Team 5 minutes to decide whether to resume with the same machine or replace it.

2. After 5 minutes have elapsed, the arbiter will reactivate the clock.

3. Before making a move, the Fritz Team will indicate to an arbiter that they are ready to resume play. The arbiter will immediately inform Mr. Kramnik.

4. After Fritz team informs the arbiter, any move made by the machine must be accepted as part of the game.

5. If the program is modified in any way, the Arbiters will conduct a series of tests to determine whether the recompiled program evaluates positions in the same way, applies the same chess knowledge, tactical speed and overall playing strength. If the Arbiters determine that the program does not play the same way as the version used in a previous game, the modification may be rejected and the Fritz Team must play with the version used for the previous game, except that Fritz Team may change the choice of opening per 8.2.

6. If the Fritz Team detects any technical problem with the software either during or before play that program failure is taking place whether or not it is "obvious mechanical failure", the Technical Arbiter shall rule on whether the game should be stopped, in which case the procedures above apply. The Fritz Team must provide a precise and clear explanation of the technical problem, specify all proposed changes and discuss how they will impact the program's choice of moves and evaluations.

Only issues related to bugs or problems caused by parallel processors, and not issues related to playing style or strength, may be modified.

7. Should the Fritz Team decide that hardware repairs cannot be made, they may substitute a machine which is either configured exactly the same as the designated playing hardware, or may switch to a dual-processor or single processor machine. The Chief Arbiter must approve any hardware modification or substitution, and may carry out tests to determine whether the provisions of this article are being met.

8.6 Post-game confirmations

1. Within two hours after the conclusion of each game, the Fritz Team shall provide a printout of the computer analysis of the game to the Arbiters and Kramnik Team.

2. After each game, the Arbiters will be provided with an opportunity to compare the opening book used in the game with the opening book used in previous games.

8.7 Delivery of software

1. The final version of the program, including endgame tablebases, will be delivered to Mr. Kramnik and the Arbiters not later than September 19, 2001. No modifications can be made to the program after that date except with the explicit permission of the Kramnik Team.

2. The Fritz Team will cooperate with the Kramnik Team to insure that the software can be properly tested by the Kramnik Team.

3. The exact hardware the program will use will be specified not later than September 30, 2001.

4. When the software is adapted to the hardware, a final version must be delivered to Kramnik Team and to the arbiters within 24 hours.

5. Any concerns on the part of Mr. Kramnik will be delivered to the Technical Arbiter with a copy sent to the Fritz Team.

9. Players and their accompanying persons

The following persons are official members of the Kramnik Team and Fritz Team. They will have access to the VIP hospitality area and press areas.

1. The Kramnik Team shall consist of:

· World Champion Vladimir Kramnik (Player)

· Miguel Illescas (Manager)

· Additional persons to be named by September 20.

2. The Fritz Team shall consists of:

· (Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· (Reserve Operator)

· Frederick Friedel (Manager)

10. Playing Conditions

1. The chairs, chessboard, scoresheets, pieces, tables and clocks shall be approved by each delegation.

2. The arrangement of the abovementioned items and the toilet and refreshment facilities shall be approved by each delegation.

3. Lighting shall be approved by each delegation

4. The players will review the arrangements listed in points 1-3 on Friday, October 12, at a time to be determined.

5. Spectators shall be located as indicated in the approved floor plan.

6. Spectators who interfere with play in any way will be removed from the playing hall as quickly as possible.

7. Only the players and arbiters can be on the stage during play.

8. Metal detectors will be used in the venue for spectators and players.

9. Mobile phones will be banned from the playing hall completely. An announcement will be made before each game that mobile phones, modems, pagers and beepers shall be switched off.

10. High level of security in all areas.

11. Players agree to undergo a personal search prior to the start of each game.

11. Toilet and refreshment facilities

1. Toilet facilities shall be approved by the players prior to the start of the match.

2. Player's side rooms will be provided with chair, monitor showing current position of the game and refreshments. For each game, the player of the White pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closest to the player, and the player of the Black pieces will use the room located off-stage on the side closes to him.

3. The arbiter may enter the private areas.

4. The organizers may place security cameras in the private rooms, but not in the toilet facilities.

12. Player responsibilities

1. All members of the Kramnik Team an Fritz Team will wear appropriate attire during all games, ceremonies and press functions. Specifically: shorts, T-shirts, sneakers/training shoes and jeans are prohibited.

2. Players shall make every effort to arrive punctually for all games and official events.

3. Players will attend the Opening Ceremony, Closing Ceremony, and all Press Conferences.

13. Drawing of lots

First, the Champion shall choose one of two identical objects. One of the two objects will confer the right to choose the next lot.

Second, the winner of the first lot will choose one of two identical objects from the a container supplied by the Organizers. One will indicate that the holder will play the White side in the first game, and the other will indicate that the holder will play the Black side in the first game

14. Opening and Closing Ceremonies

The players are obliged to be at both events, which will be scheduled in the evening. The opening ceremony will not take place the evening before the first round unless absolutely necessary.

1. Opening ceremony is will take place October 12 at a time and place to be determined by the organizers.

2. Closing ceremony will take place November 1 at a time and place to be determined by the organizers.

15. Press Conferences

1. The opening press conference will be on Friday, October 12.

2. Post game conferences of 15 minutes duration will be attended by both players however either player shall have the right to give a separate conference.

16. Photography

1. Photographs and other video recording will be permitted during the first 15 minutes of the first game

2. In all subsequent games for 5 minutes after both players have arrived at the table.

3. Web cams and television or video cameras providing authorised transmissions may be active at all times.

17. Illness and circumstances beyond the control of the organizers

1. If Mr. Kramnik is unable to play a game due to illness, that game may be postponed for one day. If he is still unable to play, the game will be forfeited.

2. In the event a game is cancelled due to reasons beyond the control of the organizers, it shall be rescheduled for two days after the final scheduled game of the match.

3. In the event a game in progress must be interrupted for reasons of health, security or in the event of power failure, the Tournament Director shall determine the appropriate action depending on the circumstances. The players may appeal this decision at any time prior to the resumption of play, or within four hours should the Tournament Director decide to annul the game.

4. It is recognized that international circumstances may require adjustments to playing schedule and conditions. In all cases the Players shall be kept fully informed and consulted.

18. Official Language

The official language for all rules, regulations and agreements is English. The Arbiters may also communicate with the players in other languages, should they deem it to be necessary.

From: Eric Schiller To: Jeremy Hanley, David Massey

{world situation discussion deleted}

BGN action would be premature at this time. I have been sharing some ideas with Ray as they come up, contingency plans of various sorts. Because they are just ideas, I leave it to him to pass on anything of interest. I'll just say that in the event BGN chose to make this an Internet-only event, there are no (zero) logistical problems. I understand the many complexities of such an overall move, of course.

Meanwhile, the final (hopefully!) rules were shipped out to Ray, Matthias and Miguel a few minutes ago. We should be in good shape there.

I am glad to see that both of you have a good perspective on the importance and volatility of the current situation. Most of my European friends still don't quite appreciate how different this is. I've opposed every military action by the US Government from Vietnam to Gulf War (but not later ones) but for the first time find myself backing and preparing for war. This is more like 1941 than anything since, and the resolve and mood of America is quite different than during Vietnam. Many of my generation feel strangely vindicated. For a long time those of us who opposed the war in Vietnam were criticized as unpatriotic, irresponsible cowards. In those days, we were confident that had a 1941 scenario existed, we'd be as supportive as anyone, but were not believed. The Vietnam generation is now demonstrating that our opposition was to that particular situation, and that we are no less willing to engage in the defense of our ideals than our parents.

It isn't the scope of the tragedy, it is the target. As in 1941 we were attacked by people who wanted to destroy our way of life and cripple the country. And in the end, they just pissed us off. So despite recent history, you will see an American response that will be long-term, extensive, and, in keeping with our history, horribly brutal. But with very little dissent.

We'll just have to adapt to the situation as it evolves. Like everyone else.

18 September 2001

From: David Massey To: Eric Schiller, Jeremy Hanley

Eric, Jeremy,

Events overtake us. It is now virtually certain that the event is postponed to January (Vladimir's diary permitting).

A solely internet event won't get the Bahrainis the exposure they want and without that there is no $1m prize fund.

What we do when we get to mid-December and there is full-scale military action is of course another matter.

I will have to discuss with a lot of people in the course of the day so will keep you informed.

Best regards,

David.

19 September 2001

From: Justin Ricketts To: All

Please find attached the official Press Release announcing the postponement of the Match. Please note that this is embargoed until tomorrow morning (with the exception of the official Brains in Bahrain website and the Brain Games website).

Any issues please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Justin Ricketts

{ATTACHMENT BEGINS}

BRAINS IN BAHRAIN EVENT POSTPONED

Match to be delayed until early 2002 in respect of the tragedy in USA

The Brains In Bahrain / Man vs Machine chess match _ between the World Chess Champion, Vladimir Kramnik, and the world's most powerful chess computer, Deep Fritz _ has today (Thursday 20^th September) been postponed in response to last week's terrorist attack on the United States.

Originally scheduled to take place in Bahrain during October, the match is now being planned to take place in early 2002.

The decision to postpone the event was made by the match organizers _ the Brain Games Network and the Government of Bahrain _ after full consultation with the two teams and the broader chess fraternity.

"In light of last week's tragedy in the United States, we have decided that it is both correct and necessary to postpone the Brains In Bahrain / Man vs Machine match until early 2002", commented Sir Jeremy Hanley, Chairman, Brain Games Network. "Just as similar international events throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world are being postponed, we too felt that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the match during a period of such concern and tragedy."

Shaikh Mohammed Bin Essa Al Khalifa, the President of the Bahraini Organisational Committee, added: "This is a decision of both the heart and the head. It is a mark of respect to the families and friends of those who have died. It is also an acknowledgment of the anticipated disruption to normal life over the coming months."

"We are, however, determined that the event will go ahead _ and are confident that we will be able to announce the details for the rescheduled date on our website www.brainsinbahrain within the next two weeks."

{ATTACHMENT ENDS}

From: Matthias Wüllenweber To: Eric Schiller

Hi,

for the sake of historical interest, I send you the current status of the engine. There are no functional limitations in it. Lets hope that Bahrain isn't postponed forever and that at a possible later date the match will get the interest it deserves.

The contact to you both was enlightening and I hope to meet you again some day,

Cheers,

From: Eric Schiller To: Matthias Wüllenweber

Thanks. Hope we meet in better times.

END OF PART TWO

To be continued in Part Three

Part Three: The past year

There was an attempt to reschedule the match for February of 2002. Despite a lot of scrambling, this did not succeed and I see no point in documenting those details. It did involve a lot of work on my part, trying to arrange equipment over the holidays. No changes regarding rules, except of course that the various dates kept changing. Then BGN sold the rights to the match to Einstein.

I do not have any documentation concerning that transfer. I was told that there was an understanding that all match officials, including Ray Keene and me, would be retained. That turned out not to be the case. I exchanged many emails with Ray on the subject, but these were understood to be confidential, as were were considering legal actions. I do not present that material here.

Ray informed me that Malcolm Pein was taking over his position, so I contacted Malcolm in the spring to find out what was going on. Malcolm prefers telephone conversations to email, and I can only present those relevant emails that I have. I will not discuss the phone calls in any detail in this document, as my intent is only to present actual email or other documented information. However, the reader can obtain quite a bit of information from the emails presented below, which make it absolutely clear that I was removed as arbiter at the demand of ChessBase.

I was never compensated by BGN or Einstein for the work I did on the match. Not a penny. I can only hope that this documentary record will at least establish the truth, and that others may learn from this experience.

28 April 2002

From: Malcolm Pein To: Eric Schiller

Thanks Eric

We are looking to sign on May 17th and then I certainly want to hire you for as much as you think you can do.

However the AI conference is not going to be possible I fear.

Please look for hardware - ASAP

The Match Rules - please send me over. I have something here but I reckon you have something else.

Really looking forward to working together

MP

From: Eric Schiller To: Malcolm Pein

I thought I might mention something that was proposed last time. Wouldn't be added to your pile of work, just has to go in right direction.

I suggested that a small conference on computer chess (or AI) technology might be a good idea. I know that the scientific world will be watching (indeed, one of my old employers just dropped a note to say he'd be there). Not a big deal, but a chance for some additional prestige, needing nothing more than:

a) a conference room to meet in

b) someone in Bahrain to coordinate (probably a university type)

In fact, whole thing could be done at a university, they could do all the work.

Such an event, no matter how small, would provide an excuse for scientists to come to the match, and would provide interesting resources for interviews etc. if the match gets dull.

On a more general note, you can feel free to assign me any duties in addition to arbiting. I'm very flexible, and can contribute quite a bit to online operations as I am very up-to-date on technology. I'm developing with .NET and have the entire XML schema for chess finished and in proofreading/testing stage. This means that a single source file can produce: printed bulletin, web page, SMS service, possibly even Arabic language stuff though that needs a bit of work. Since my technology is Open Source, it is free of any fees, licenses or charges. If interested, just have the webmaster contact me.

Of course, I love press room functions, and my performance there is not too shabby. Certainly Henderson has nothing to fear :-)

Of course, I need to have flexibi