Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 19:24:24 12/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2002 at 16:08:38, Russell Reagan wrote:
>On December 31, 2002 at 15:41:17, Andrew Williams wrote:
>
>>But this was always true. And Tiger and Shredder and Junior and others have
>>participated in the past.
>
>And they didn't have to be automated, and there weren't other rules like
>kibitzing. It's not that those rules are so hard to follow. It's just the extra
>annoyance of having to deal with them. It was probably a fun thing to
>participate in in past years, but now we are starting to pile on the rules, and
>now what used to be fun has become work, an obligation, a hassle.
>
>>I'm not sure what else you could. If it's not in the rules, why would anyone
>>bother?
>
>That is the correct method (putting it in the rules), but this is not the right
>event. The problem is not that the amateur engines of the world don't support
>winboard. The problem is that the commercial engines don't support it (if this
>is not the case, there is no problem, and this rule is meaningless). It will
>take some major event (probably WCCC or WMCCC) to require such a rule, and then
>it will become a standard thing at other events. Requiring it in an event as
>weak as this one isn't going to accomplish forward progress. So far, it's been
>nothing but backwards.
>
>Either it should be fun or it should be serious. If it's fun, drop the serious
>rules. If it's serious, do something to bring the serious competitors ($$$). Fun
>+ serious rules + no prize fund = failure. If the rules stay the same next time
>around (if there is a next time), participation will continue to dwindle, and
>eventually no one will want to run the event.
It is not nice for people who make their own engine to participate in
a tournament where you sit against operators without programmer of it online.
The current rules and demands are very good.
I am extremely busy.
the level is not serious (it's a blitz level 45 something, do some math.
it is comparable to 99 hardware at 3 minutes a move or so or so; going
back in time) and there is too little publicity for the tournament to
consider joining.
I do not know a single commercial who cannot play in that tournament
following the CURRENT rules. Everyone has some kind of interface or version
that can do what is demanded.
The rules are ok. It's not the rules that are the problem.
Take the time of the tournament. Middle of januari.
The good thing for me is that it is one of the few weekends
in januari that there is no belgium masterclass nor dutch
masterclass competition for me.
The bad thing is
- it is the only weekend winter 2002/2003 that i could see the snow
in the mountains elsewhere in europe
- all projects i know start around december/januari, so it is very busy
then for *anyone*. I bet for the people who join too.
- any result in the tournament gets projected at the CCC whereas it is
impossible for me to use a tournament version there because of the
preparation in paderborn versus this tournament getting published
nowhere. You people will ask of course "why?" but
remember that paderborn 2003 is a very serious tournament.
- it is an automated tournament. 45 10 is really a kids level. if you play
automated no one has a right to complain if a tournament takes 12 hours
or so a day. Even operating at world champs is not costing much energy.
The only thing costing energy is the desire to win. Here you are completely
automated. Why not play a serious level that *would* give it a lot of
status? 60 10 was already pretty quick. Not to mention 45 10. That's what
we call 'rapid level' here.
I wait till around 10 januari to decide what i do. It is very tempting
to participate for me or to let Zeke Smigel join for me with something that's
online anyway (random book though).
We will see. I just got the new version of diep to work yesterday single
cpu. 1 januari hopefully SMP too. Perhaps i'll just use cct5 to see
whether it doesn't crash and whether new time division code and new
evaluation code and new parallel code is working :)
A good dual bugfix test for paderborn 2003. That's the positive thing
cct5 could be for me.
I do not know about others.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.