Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:14:00 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 16:29:22, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 16:03:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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??? > >FYI, the deadline for registration is June 15th, and I know of a few additional >people that will surely register. > >For a whole week everyone complained why the preliminary list is not published >(read some of your posts with many capitalized words from yesterday) And now >that it is published, you start attacking a "10-participant WCCC"..... I'm not attacking _anything_ here but the poor policies of the ICGA. Why the secrecy with the participant list? Because of the limited number? Someone too lazy to create a web site and update it? CCT's participant list was kept up-to-date on a web site, for comparison. I expect a little openness. I expect a set of rules that are actually followed and not changed multiple times before the event is held. I expect a TD to act like a TD and not make idiotic decisions such as those in Graz. IE I expect something like we have in place for our CCT events. Is that _really_ too much to expect from _the_ computer chess organization??? > > > >> >>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.