Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:00:09 12/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2004 at 01:28:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 11, 2004 at 23:18:47, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On December 11, 2004 at 22:55:45, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On December 11, 2004 at 21:50:46, James Swafford wrote: >>> >>>>On December 11, 2004 at 20:42:21, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>Not on this front. I was just about to post something myself, actually. >>>>> >>>>>anthony >>>> >>>>Seems Volker is MIA. It's time to move one and find another >>>>organizer. How about you Anthony? >>>> >>>>The most difficult tasks will be pinning down a date and time >>>>control everyone can live with. You could draft someone on >>>>ICC to be the TD, put up a simple website with the latest >>>>info, and maybe even get a commentator. >>>> >>>>It's a lot of work, but if you really want to get "the stupid >>>>tournament scheduled" so you can get your sponsor, then how about >>>>it? :) >>>> >>>>-- >>>>James >>> >>>I already stated I would be willing to do it. >>> >>>I have everything needed. Swiss Perfect, account on ICC, website. >>> >>>February 19-20 would be a fine time. >>> >>>Time control: 45/10 >>>Rounds: 7 >>> >>>In the event of a tie break: >>>2 games at the same time with alternating color. >>> >>>If both programs are still tied after the breaker games then: >>>30/0 games with alternating colors until a program wins. >>> >>>If that is not agreed to, then Buchholtz scoring would be fine as well. We could >>>use the rankings from the last tournament for seedings. Or even the last 3 >>>averaged out for seedings. >>> >>>As before, all programs must be able to kibitz their evaluation during games. >>> >>>That is just for starts and just off the top of my head *rolls eyes* :) >>> >>>Peter >> >>I think it would be pretty hard for me to TD & compete at the same time, so if >>you want to do it, I'm all for it, although I don't mind helping out a bit here >>and there if you want it. The long and the short of this post being that I'll >>vote for a Skinner-run CCT. 7 rounds actually might be a good idea, as the >>5-round day last year was pretty grueling. >> >>anthony > >feb 19 & 20 is a few days before start of paderborn 2005 or during paderborn >2005. 30 10 is not a serious level for a tournament. > >7 rounds is too little by any Hyatt standard even. He lobbied for years to get >the world champs more rounds. Any chance you will _ever_ stop making stuff up? I _never_ lobbied for more rounds. I have _consistently_ lobbied for _FEWER_. The events are too long. I have been consistent in saying that. Through 1994, every ACM event I played in, and ever WCCC event I played in were 4-5 rounds, period. If you are going to make statements, at least make something that is partially true. >>It's 11 rounds now. you can very relaxed do 3 >games of 90 0 in 1 day especially because it's unattended and because programs >must kibitz. 45 10 is already pretty quick level to be taken serious and you can >do easily 5 rounds a day with it. > >7 rounds is too little by any means to determine a winner in a field of probably >50 programs. Someone can get a winner without playing a single serious >contender. Please re-do your math. with 50 players, and 7 rounds, the best two will play, period. 6 rounds is enough for 64 players to get a clear best. an extra round is gravy to round out the top few places. No way for the winner to win without playing good programs. Just can't happen. > >If you calculate the total cpu time that you get at 30 10 on average knowing the >average computergame is pretty long now. At least 60 moves, where a year or 10 >ago they didnt even last on average 40 moves. > >In world champs 1999 at a quad xeon 500Mhz, the chessbase programs set the >standard of level. Of course there was several supercomputers joining there. > >example junior had quad xeon 500Mhz and the level was 3 minutes a move. > >180s * 2Ghz = 360 Ghz-seconds. > >At 30 10 at a modern hardware, and i guess the average this tournament will be a >single cpu A64 2.2Ghz. > >30 10 is roughly on average 35 seconds a move. 35 * 2.2Ghz = 77Ghz-seconds. 30 10 is more like 60 seconds per move. Don't forget pondering. 40/120 is more like 4.5-5.5 minutes per move, for example. > >So majority of programs will be effectively 5 times slower than hardware dated >1999 got in world champs 1999. > >That effectively renders the CCT to an absolute amateurish event without any >publicity. It renders it a fun event to participate in and watch. Wonder why FIDE events are getting faster and faster? There's a reason. Quality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we could play a week per move and _really_ see high quality, if anyone stayed around to watch even a single move. You can always use this is your excuse to not play in this one...
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.