Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:09:32 07/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2004 at 12:42:11, Frank Phillips wrote: >On July 04, 2004 at 18:26:40, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On July 04, 2004 at 16:26:34, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On July 04, 2004 at 16:00:39, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >>> >>>>On July 04, 2004 at 13:59:26, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>> >>>>>This (and Uri's post about time management) seem to indicate that it would be >>>>>advantageous to run an on site fics chess server and remove the need for humans >>>>>to move the pieces for the machine. I have forgotten why the need for humans to >>>>>move real pieces is not as mind-bogglingly stupid as it first appears. Hey, the >>>>>games could be even be relayed through ICC and FICS to people interested in >>>>>computer chess ;-) >>>> >>>>To my knowledge, FICS like servers do not support the time control used at WCCC. >>>>Also some remote engines might have problems with a local server. If you allow >>>>really remote connections to a FICS server, the whole idea of a tournament, >>>>where also programmers meet, is gone. >> >>I did (on purpose) not show any opinion about whether automatic play should be >>preferred or not. Just wanted to mention some technical details. >> >>>OK, although I do not know how sacred the specific time control is; or whether >>>the fics server software could be hacked appropriately. >> >>If, then the later. Wouldn't it be rather embarassing to say: "Sorry, we cannot >>play a classical time control, because our software cannot handle it". And it >>surely should be possible to program some chess server, that can handle it >>(although it will probably slightly more complicated than the normal sever time >>controls, where for example, there is no need to keep a move counter for the >>time control issues). Another thing that would need to be fixed, is the wrong >>handling of some draws (for example, ICC will give you a draw, when you forfeit >>on time for the P-side of KNKP: "no mating material", even when the N-side has a >>forced mate). >> >>The (some) CB-engines might not like a FICS-like server, because they cannot >>connect to it with their typical GUI. And they might not like to play with a >>bare engine. For example, because the GUI does their book handling (perhaps even >>TB-handling, but I don't know). So, practically, it might be not really easy to >>just say: Let's play on a FICS like server. >> >>Regards, >>Dieter > >Good job we invented physical chess sets and boards, otherwise how would have >ever held a computer chess championship ;-) (I suppose each operator could >just type the move into the other machine directly - or send a telegram.). > >I think the classical time control is a red-herring. > >I resign - but remain unconvinced that the current way is best. Although I >accept it might be best for the participants, which is what really matters I >guess. > It is _not_ best for the participants. Manual move entry turns sudden-death into an operator vs operator contest. That isn't what the WCCC is supposed to be. If they want sudden death, that's fine. But play ought to be automated so that operators don't play any role in the game at all... Alas, stubbornness is not going to let this happen it appears... >Frank
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.