Kasparov Chess

--------------------------

FIDE Woman’s World Champion Xie Jun takes on the world’s top chess computer Deep Junior 

Technical problems sink match

By KC News Team

---------------------------

Xie Jun vs. Deep Jr.

Deep Junior won game three against FIDE Woman World Champion Xie Jue in the now-abandoned six-game challenge match that was been plagued by Internet connection problems from Shanghai since it began on March 8.

Until the last minute, it was unclear whether this special match would even go ahead at all. This was because of money transfer disagreements. But since the commencement of the match, the main obstacles were not financial, rather technical: with severe ISP problems in Shanghai repeatedly curtailing play. After several disconnections in game one the Deep Junior team offered to adjourn and reschedule. Xie Jun adamantly refused. So with the intervention of the renowned Singaporean Arbiter Ignatius Leong, it was decided that the game would be scratched, as there was no sporting value in proceeding any further. The six game match had become a five game one.

Despite the successful Internet connection tests carried out on the two days leading up to the second game which was due to begin Saturday, there were again ISP connection problems in Shanghai at the outset. In fact, it took one and a half hours beyond the scheduled time to establish an Internet connection. During this time, the Deep Junior team suggested that the game be played via telephone, but Xie Jun turned down this offer.

When the game did finally get underway, Deep Junior experience some technical problems of its own after the second move. As a result, DJ had a 15 minute time penalty imposed. When play was again resumed, it was evident that Junior was not connected to its opening book library. As a result, it played the opening very poorly and went on to lose. Xie Jun was annoyed that DJ did not resign on time.

It came as no surprise in game three that there were the usual ISP problems in Shanghai and yet again, the game started one and a half hours late. Although Xie Jun argued that the lost time should be deducted from Deep Junior it was finally decided by mutual consent that the time controls for this game would be reduced to an hour for 40 moves followed by an hour guillotine. The game was won by Junior.

Prior to the game, Xie Jun insisted that if DJ disconnects it should forfeit the game. This demand was not accepted.

The 29-year-old Chinese champion Xie Jun is playing the first 4 games from Shanghai and the remainder from Beijing while Deep Junior, developed by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky is playing all its games from his deluxe air-conditioned suite at the KasparovChess.com Herzlia offices in Israel.

Round 1 Wednesday March 8 Adjourned then cancelled due to technical problems.

Round 2 Saturday March 11 (Started late due to technical problems in Shanghai)Xie Jun won

Round 3 Sunday March 12 Deep Junior won

Round 4 Wednesday March 15 Match cancelled

The fourth (or third) encounter between Xie Jun and DJ was, ironically, the first game to start in time. Shanghai logged into the event server on time for the first time in the match, ready to start.

At 13:31 GMT, Xie Jun played her first move - e4!

Like in a horror story, DJ did not respond. The night before, in the midst of the Kasparov grand simul in NY and just before the live Becker-Kasparov match planned for the next day, a correction was made to the DJ robot to patch a problem of not updating Deep Junior with server time when the second time control would take effect. Apparently, this last-minute change was fatal, and locked DJ just at the crucial moment.

(Naturally, the new robot had been tested during the night and found to be working.)

After several attempts to recover, we decided to move to manual feeding.

(This was also the way Xie Jun was playing--that is, over the board, with moves fed via Mr. Leong, the official observer.)

Xie Jun demanded compensation: a 20-minute deduction on DJ's clock, which was granted to her upon resuming. As the tragedy continued, DJ's manual operator committed a mouse slip and instead of castling, the book move, he dropped DJ's queen on d8. This out-of-the-blue event did not stop DJ, and the game continued, with DJ working its way out of the odd position it was driven into.

But then came the final blow--a disconnection message from Xie Jun's playing applet was received just as she played 16. Qe2. Xie Jun did not realize she had been disconnected from the server. Noticing that DJ's clock was still running and DJ was not making a move, she rejected the idea that she was the one disconnected. After an hour of trying to persuade Xie Jun to close the applet and to reconnect in order to resume the game, there seemed to be no point to artificially keeping alive this "jinxed event" and the match was called off. This unfortunate match calls for deep apologies to the frustrated and disapointed spectators.

Let's hope for better days.

----------------------------------------------------------

Open letter from Xie Jun Shanghai, 17th March 2000

When I read Michael Adams' open letter in The Week in Chess, some weeks ago, it was hard for me to envisage that I myself would be the next person with a bad experience in a match against Deep Junior. The ClubKasparov (CK) report is most unfair and I am quite shocked about the many ugly words. I can barely believe that this report reflects the same match as the one I played. Never before has my behaviour been criticised like this. As the reigning Women's World Champion, and also for myself as an honest person, I very much like to give my version of the story.

Let us start at the beginning. The match report mentions that it was unclear whether the match would go ahead, until the last minute, and the blame is put on 'money transfer disagreements'. This is simply not true and it should read that CK did not pay me as agreed, more commonly known as 'breach of contract'. Some time before the match I sent a signed contract to CK. On it, I wrote that I would agree to all, provided that I would receive part of the starting fee in my bank account, thirty days prior to the start. One week before the starting date, however, I had still not received anything. I made it clear to CK that I would not play unless I would be paid as agreed. Several days before the first match game I arrived in Shanghai and Mr. Ignatius Leong - appointed by CK to act as the official observer - handed over a fax from CK. This fax had the signatures of both Eyal Gutman and Torn Walker, in the role of CEO of Kasparovchess online Inc. So this was the supposed prove of money transfer. Yet, I had asked specifically for some sort of bank statement and now all I got was an internal CK document on office paper. Later I was given more assurances but I had already lost my interest in listening. From that moment onwards, all communication went via Mr. Leong. On the day of the first game I had still not received any money and I had to make a serious choice. In the end, I decided to play only when I saw the announcement on CK's web site and I realised that I would disappoint many people by not playing. In addition, the match was already announced in many places in the Chinese media. So let it be clear that I agreed to play in the situation where the contract was already breached by CK.

Now we move to the games. For game one, I arrived at 13:15 GMT (21:15 local time) in the playing room. The game did not start on time and during the game, there were many problems with the connection. It is difficult for me to understand why immediately the blame was put on me. In the contract it was stated explicitly that CK would organise the match and that I "will be located in China and will receive technical support from CK (hard- and software) if needed, a CK web site reporter will be present where Xie Jun actually plays Deep Junior". In my view, this meant that I needed to be present and only concentrate on playing the game, and that I was not in charge of possible technical problems, caused in China or Israel. Because of these connection problems, the game could not continue and a proposal was made to reschedule the game. I did not agree. Firstly, it is not my responsibility when the technique is not in place. Moreover, I had agreed to a match of six games (and one play-off game, if needed) and not seven. I am sure that I would have co-operated (and agreed to a seventh game) had it not been for the fact that both Mr. Leong (the independent observer) and myself felt repeatedly insulted by the aggressive tone of CK's communication, implying that we were the originators of the technical problems. This attitude, together with the aforementioned financial 'disagreement' made me refuse to add a seventh game to the match at this stage.

For the second game I arrived, like the first time, 15 minutes prior to the start of the game in the playing hall (21:15 local time). Unfortunately, the problems had not been solved. It took more than an hour before the game got going and both sides agreed to shorten the total playing time from 6 to 5 hours. This had been at my request because I did not want to last the game over night. It is also obvious that I could not agree to play by telephone: the contract stated very clearly that "all games will be played through the Internet". Moreover, if I do not see the moves on the screen, how could I tell whom I am playing? It might well be another grandmaster. Finally, the game got started at about 23:00 local time, still with numerous problems, and after some time I ended up in a position with bishop and five pawns against knight and two pawns. Having played for about ten moves in this elementary position, I asked via Mr. Leong if Deep Junior knew how to resign. This question seemed perfectly legitimate to me. It was the first time that I played this computer program and it does not take a grandmaster to win a basic endgame position three pawns up. I was simply wondering whether the programmers would step in - and show a little respect for their opponent - or whether we would go on until mate. The game finished at 1:30 AM local time.

Similar problems occurred in game three. I had to wait for more than two and half-hours before we could start and only a few minutes before midnight the CK/Deep Junior team fixed the problem. After all this waiting, I did what everybody else would do in the situation, i.e. ask for time compensation. However, the Deep Junior team refused and during the time of fixing the technical problems, there had been a row on the phone between Mr. Leong and our contacts on the other side. I gathered that Mr. Leong was talking to Shay and Aviv Bushinsky, but I was left out of the discussion as Mr. Leong did not want me to get more annoyed than I was. I sat in the middle of the room and waited. Finally, the game was changed to a four-hours time control. I lost the game in the middle of the night. The next day was the first time that I read a report about the match on CK web site and I felt deeply insulted. The report was one-sided, incorrect and there was no trace of Mr. Leong's report - the independent observer in Shanghai.

Game four started on the same day as the closing ceremony of the SUFE cup (the Shanghai tournament) and there was a party next to the playing hall. I arrived on time and, luckily enough, the game started on time. After making my first move (21:42 local time) I saw that there were problems on the other side. Deep Junior disconnected at 21:44, at 21:49, at 21:54, at 21:59 and at 22:12. Then I noticed something strange on the screen: Deep Junior's time rolled backwards (!) while I was losing time. Of course, I refused to continue in this chaos. After some telephone discussion it was agreed by the Deep Junior team to reset my time to 2 hours and Deep Junior's time to 1:40. I was quite happy for the game to continue when, all of the sudden, the next thing happened. In a standard Sicilian position, Deep Junior made the original move ...Kd8 (and not ...Qd8, as in the CK report). Naturally, I realised that the person in charge with the mouse had made the error of letting the king slip while castling. I replied a4 without any thought and waited for an explanation or a request for take-back from the Deep Junior team. The reason I made my move fast is that I did not want any of the discussions to take place in my own thinking time. To my surprise, nothing happened for 25 minutes and then Deep Junior (or someone else?) played...Ke8. I felt quite embarrassed by it all. There I sat, trying to play a serious game against an opponent who had played ...Kd8, Ke8, Kf8, h5 and Rh7 -even though this may have been the best defence under the circumstances. In the meantime, more and more chess players arrived from the party to watch the game and there was a television crew from CCTV, the largest TV station in China, zooming in ... on this remarkable position - probably to the amusement of millions of chess connoisseurs in China. I cannot remember exactly at what time I played 16.Qe2, but Mr. Leong's phone rang and he brought the news that the Deep Junior team thought that the Shanghai connection was lost. All spectators and myself were surprised because on the screen we could still see that Deep Junior's clock was ticking - not the picture you expect to see when logged out. Mr. Leong explained on the phone what we saw and told the CK contact that there was a television crew present. He asked the crew to zoom in on the position. Next, the well-known French organiser Jean-Paul Touze arrived on the scene (from the next-door disco) and he explained once more what we witnessed on the screen. Yet, the Bushinsky brothers were not convinced and asked me to leave the Internet and log-in again. I agreed to do this, but under the condition that the time for technical problems would be deduced from the Deep Junior clock, because the technical problem had been with the Deep Junior connection, as far as we could judge. It had already happened a few times and the game could last forever, if no time were deduced at all. The Deep Junior team refused.

In the end, I heard from Mr. Leong that the Deep Junior team called off the match and that they cancelled the remaining games. I asked Mr. Leong to phone back to have this message in writing, because I did not want to be accused some days later or forfeiting games five and six. However, nobody answered the phone and Mr. Leong listened to an answering machine. Consequently, Mr. Leong let me wait until 00:05 local time when Deep Junior ran out of time. I was then declared by Mr. Leong (CK's official independent observer) as the winner of game four.

Allow me to make a few additional remarks. Nobody forces CK or the Deep Junior team to organise matches through the Internet. When the technique is not ready, these matches should simply not take place. If CK or the Deep Junior team decides to embark on these matches anyway, there has to be somebody from CK present with full responsibility for the technical aspect. Without any form of regulation, the above mentioned problems will remain. It would also be an improvement to have a real independent arbiter.

Lastly, never in my life have I been accused of bad sportsmanship and I cannot remember that Michael Adams ever had problems. In any normal situation, I expect organisers to treat chess players like Michael Adams and myself, reigning Women's World Champion, with at least some basic form of respect. In an experimental Internet situation, where many things still need sorting out, all parties involved need to be flexible. This was apparently not the case here. I leave it up to the reader to draw conclusions. If needed, I have no problem whatsoever in handing over documents, game sheets (complete or incomplete) or other material to prove my story - to an independent person, that is.

In my opinion, the CK news Team and the Deep Junior team owe me an apology for breach of contract, insulting behaviour and leaving out crucial data in the final match report.

Let us hope for better days indeed.

----------------------------------------------------------

Amir Ban

Hi,

I didn't comment on this match so far, and didn't think there was anything to comment on really. This match was a failure and of no real computer chess interest both because of the internet connection problems, and even more, in my mind, because of gross errors in operating Deep Junior.

I was not directly involved in this match. I was tied up with other commitments. The main burden fell on Shay, who is a KC officer, and he, assisted by some KC staff, handled the operation of Deep Junior while also having to handle the technical communication aspect of the affair, plus doing most of the dialogue with Shanghai during the match. I was not on site, and while I got some information from Shay on the phone, most of what I know is from the KC web account which I read like the rest of you, against which Ms. Xie's letter is directed.

I need to make clear that I'm NOT connected to KasparovChess in any official or unofficial way. I don't know if they intend to respond to Ms. Xie letter, but since much of what she says is directed at the "Deep Junior Team", I would like to make some comments.

Ms. Xie account basically says that she was insulted and lied to, and her account is directed at that conclusion. She accuses both KC and the DJ team. On behalf of the DJ team, I can say that we certainly did not insult her, as we never made any public comment about her. We did not lie to her or break any agreement we had with her as we had none. Her contract was with KC, not with DJ, who was her opponent.

If her accusations are directed only at KC, I could easily say that this is not my concern, but as an observer, I still would like to disagree with her. KasparovChess are no doubt to blame for mismanaging this match. Enough justified criticism was said about this, and I don't need to add to it. Nevertheless, to their credit I notice that both in the Adams incident and this one KC as an organization have freely taken on themselves the blame, and in no way were engaged in blame throwing. I also note that they have been eager rather than reluctant to accommodate the opponent and to offer compensation for the mishaps.

So I am quite surprised to read that she found their account so offensive. The KC account is still posted on their site for anyone to see, and I honestly can't find the "many ugly words" that so deeply insulted her. I thought the account was rather delicate, and did not make any value judgement on her behavior. I do not see in that account anything that hints that connection problems in Shanghai were her fault. She was not accused of unsportsmanship (though we did indeed consider one of her demands to be poor sportsmanship). She was certainly not accused of dishonesty, and it's a mystery why she says protests honesty.

Many of those who read the KC report concluded that the match ran into problems, which were not her fault, and that she was in a position to help, but didn't. As a result, some posted here that she has part of the blame for the failure of the match. This is public opinion, which we all have to deal with, but this was certainly not said by KC, and it was never implied that she was under any obligation to do anything, like playing through the telephone when internet lines were down. On the other hand, to say that playing through the telephone was a violation of the terms of the match is in my opinion nonsense which was said by her as an afterthought. Both sides are of course free to agree on anything with the consent of the arbiter, and if she were concerned about the letter of the agreement, I'm sure KC would have sent her an immediate fax exempting her of all fault for breaking it.

I don't think it was possible for KC to tell a shorter story than they did without keeping the public in the dark about what happened and why.

I'm even more surprised because I think that those who read her account carefully will come to the conclusion that, first, it does not contradict the KC account in any important detail, and second, that her own account reflects on her worse than anything KC said. In my opinion, KC showed proper discretion by keeping silent on some facts which, while true, if published would paint her in a less favorable light, and apparently KC had no such intention.

I thought "money transfer disagreements" was a properly bland term to describe something that was best not described in detail. Ms. Xie on the other hand does not mince words and calls this a lie, and then proceeds to describe those "money transfer disagreements". Reading her account of this, I think that signing a contract and adding an additional condition at the same time can easily lead to innocent misunderstanding. I read that she received signed assurances signed by the KC CEO (of course legally binding), and she dismisses it as a worthless piece of paper, which can certainly cause some offense to Mr. Eyal Gutman.

Her account strongly implies that in the end she sat down to play without getting any money, out of consideration for the fans, though she does say she got more assurances, without specifying what they were. This is in contradiction to what I've been told, that in the end Ms. Xie agreed to play only when, at her insistence, all sums promised to her in this match, including a large bonus for winning the match, were transferred to her, all in advance.

Ms. Xie tells a detail that KC completely omitted in their account: That from the start of the match she refused to talk directly to any KC staff or to the DJ operator, and all the rather lengthy discussions that took place over the four games were exclusively through Mr. Leong. The people on the KC end interpreted this behavior as a declaration of contempt for them, and her account more or less confirms this impression.

Her account of times and delays in each of the games are probably accurate. They have been described by the KC account in the necessary detail. All connection problems this time originated in Shanghai. This was in no way her fault, but I think it should be noted that she is discussing the same events, in case anyone is led to believe she describes problems and delays not reported by KC. The KC staff was of course aware that this was causing problems on her side, and in all games she received time adjustment and shortening of time controls as she demanded, except on one occasion: This was on the third game (won by DJ) when after a long delay in starting the game Ms. Xie demanded that all the time passed should be deducted from her opponent's clock. The KC account merely says that this was refused. In fact, Shay, who was scandalized by this demand, told Ms. Xie through Mr. Leong that the DJ team withdraws from the match, and agreed to continue only after a more reasonable agreement was reached on shortening time controls. Ms. Xie says that her demand is what everyone would do, but I don't agree with that.

As to the move Kd8, in normal circumstances I'm sure the operator would pick up the phone, apologize and ask for a takeback. It's good to hear that this would have been accepted by Ms. Xie, but, under the cirucumstances of this match the operator thought that there was no point in asking and decided to bite the bullet. The king walk was certainly not meant to embarrass her in front of the audience. From the point of view of the game it was to her advantage, as was the book error in the second game.

There is no disagreement about the circumstances in which the match was called off. Ms. Xie was disconnected, and was asked by the KC staff to reconnect. Since she saw at her end DJ on the move and its clock ticking, she refused and challenged DJ to make a move on her screen or lose on time. By her account, she brought well-known people to vouch for what she saw on the screen, but could not convince the KC staff. The KC staff of course did not need this testimony as it was irrelevant, and they tried to explain to her that she is seeing a local view shown by her local disconnected viewer. Giving up on that, they cancelled the rest of the match, and told it to her of course through Mr. Leong. This was not done by consensus, but I think it is obvious that in the complete breakdown of trust and communication and with no idea how to continue this was the only sane course of action. I think quite apart from the fact that Ms. Xie thought she was being lied to about this, it's hard to understand how anyone would agree to play a match through the internet without being prepared to believe the organizers about how their connection software works.

Amir