Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:03:35 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 14:58:00, Richard Pijl wrote: >>> >>>It is not about playing games. >>>It is not about winning prizes. >>>It is not about pleasing spectators >>> >>>It is about meeting the other participants. >> >>That is the idea behind a "conference". It is possible to do a 2-3 day chess >>conference, but play the actual games automatically either in parallel with the >>conference or before/after... > >I do not object against automatic playing on e.g. a (local) ICS. I do object >against remote participation. The author should be on-site. If not possible >perhaps an operator could do, but that is certainly not preferred. It is simply not practical, so long as the tournament is _always_ held far from North America. So there is little point in arguing about the pros and cons. But a simple question. Go back to any period in time when one program was clearly the best. Take Belle in 1980. Would you rather hold the event and not have Belle participate, which clearly de-values the event, or do you let them use an operator that is not a programmer to get the program in, period? The answer is pretty clear. Yes, authors present is better than authors not present. But do you _really_ believe that authors present is better when very few programs _or_ authors show up? Is a 10-participant WCCC _really_ a "WCCC" event??? That's the problem here... It is better to (a) get the programs there; then (b) worry about trying to get the authors there. Else the term WCCC becomes highly diluted. > >>>It is about fair competition with minimized fraud possibilities. (hitting the >>>'move-now' button or changing engine setting mid-game is easy when you can't >>>been seen by your opponent) >> >>It is easy when you _can_ be seen. It has happened many times in the past. >> >>Oh yes. It would be harder to resign a won or drawn position because you think >>that is the "right result" if things are automated. No operator time penalties >>for slow vs fast typing. No time funny-business. No forgetting to hit the >>chess clock. No move input errors. Etc... > >Again, no objection against automatic playing. Especially for faster time >controls it is probably a must. One has to ask "why haven't they already done this then?" I have no answer. There really is no answer that can be given. Just say "we are going to run a local FICS (or even better play on ICC where the world can watch) and you can either show up with a program that works there or don't show up." > >>>I've participated in the last two CCT-tournaments. I also join in the grand-prix >>>cycle on ICC. I think it is a nice way of organizing a tournament. But chat >>>online is limited, and channel 64 is (during CCT) usually spammed by nitwits. >>>I've also participated in 3 CSVN tournaments, 2 Dutch championships and one >>>tournament in Paderborn, all requiring presence of the author/operator. I also >>>visited (as a spectator) Maastricht 2002 twice, and Paderborn 2003. I had to >>>skip Graz 2003 because of my daughters birthday that was during the tournament. >>>If I have to chose between participating in an on-site tournament and an on-line >>>tournament I'll choose the on-site tournament if my funds are sufficient. >> >>That is the point. Suppose you discover it will cost $3000 US to attend. Will >>that change things? It does for me... > >Of course. I just made a calculation that it would cost 700euro's minimum for me >(that includes sharing a hotel room, cheap flight which is not very advisable >with my posture, contribution by/to the organisation and pocket money to buy >meals and drinks). > >>>There you'll have the possibility of really meet all the heroes of computer >>>chess, drink a beer with them and have dinner with them. I don't see that >>>happening in an online tournament. >> >>Looks like you won't see it happening much longer. Last WCCC = 16. This one >>has 10 so far. I can compute the slope of the linear function used to >>approximate rate of change.... >> > >The move to give 500$ to cover part of the travelling costs is a step in the >right direction. Now we need a less controversial location and a shorter >tournament to reduce costs further. I would love to visit Israel at some time. So the location is fine by me. The problem is that it is (a) a long trip; (b) a costly trip; and (c) the same distance has to be traveled every year for me to attend. But regardless, the event is _way_ too long. One easy solution is an automatic interface and then you could play 30 rounds, 6 rounds per day, if that is what they want. Nobody gets tired. > >>> >>>Richard.
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.