Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:02:46 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 04:07:27, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On August 26, 2000 at 02:07:46, Peter Skinner wrote:
>
>>>I will not be able to devote time to help you, but I would like to see you
>>>organizing the event in Canada as you told us earlier, and I confirm I would
>>>come to this event in person, on my own expenses if needed.
>>>
>>>I hope you can find a sponsor for this and I believe that with a better Internet
>>>coverage the sponsor would not regret spending his money in the event.
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>Well thanks for your support. This is what I propose:
>>
>>1. Tournament will not be of the uni-platform system. It has been proven in the
>>past, that the biggest hardware doesn't always win, and thus is really a non-
>>substantial factor. Thus I do believe that it will not be used, and that is
>>great as some programs, such as JPConnors doesn't run on a single cpu ???
>
>
>
>Organizing a uniform platform event has indeed proven to be almost impossible. I
>would personally prefer to enter such an event, but most programmers are
>apparently afraid to play with equal weapons. Some are hiding behind their
>alledged superior architecture (but almost nobody can afford it so it's really
>of little interest), some others know they have more money and are counting on
>this to get an advantage...
I don't like the "hiding behind" nonsense. I would rather characterize it
as follows: "some programmers are too lazy to make their programs compatible
with a wide variety of architectures. Rather, in order to do as well as
possible on the SSDF and similar tests, they do everything they can to optimize
for one specific platform, the world of the X86."
I see _no_ reason anybody would/should not use an alpha. Bruce bought one.
Shredder ran on one in Paris. As did Dark Thought. As did Crafty. I can run
on _anything_. So uniform platform is ok (albiet a stupid idea as why do we
eliminate things like the alpha, and others? uniform platform would have
eliminated Rebel for many years since it ran on an ARM) pick-your-own platform
is ok too.
It seems to me that it is much easier to say "lets use uniform platform to make
it fair" rather than "I'm going to support _all_ architectures so that I can
use whatever I can get..."
Wouldn't the world of auto racing be wonderful if everybody had to run with
exactly the same engine and transmission? Wouldn't golf be wonderful if
everybody had to use the same clubs? Wouldn't tennis be wonderful if everyone
had to use the same equipment? Ditto for airplane racing, boat racing, etc.
Restricting things to one piece of hardware is stifling, not leveling.
>
>So everybody has good reasons to support an unfair event.
>
>The problem with an open platform event is that travelling with your computer is
>really a pain, and can cost a lot of money.
>
>Ideally, a sponsor would provide some computers for those who cannot bring
>theirs. The provided computers should have good performances, but it is of
>course impossible to get top hardware for every program...
>
>
>
>>2. Authors will be required to attend, to operate his/her program for atleast 2
>>games that the program participates in. It is hopefull that this will be the
>>first 2 games, as it is in the best interest of the tournament to have as many
>>authors to answer questions about their programs. It is also due to the fact
>>that the author is the best known person to operate his program. This is also to
>>promote the exchanging of ideas, and awareness to a program that really only an
>>author can supply.
>
>
>
>I don't believe in the "exchange of ideas", but I agree that it would be nice to
>have the author of each program operating his creature.
>
>Actually I would prefer the event to be a "programmer's championship" rather
>than a "computer championship". That means that one author can enter up to one
>program. The author, or one of the author, of the engine must operate his
>program, and operating by another person (for example the author of the opening
>book) should be forbidden, unless the author of the ENGINE is physically present
>at the championship.
>
>The purpose of these events are
> 1) commercial
> 2) social
>and I think number 2 is also very important.
>
>
I think that is short-sighted. Instead of getting all the authors at the
same location, you fail miserably as some can't afford/won't afford to go.
Others can't/won't go due to scheduling issues.
As a result, you simply exclude programs that ought to be there. The ACM
_always_ allowed non-programmer operators. Most authors came. But on
occasion, they couldn't. I'd rather have their program there without the
author than to not have the author. Some examples of programs at ACM events
without the authors being present:
Deep Thought
Cray Blitz (rare but it would happen particularly in years where we
had both a WCCC _and_ an ACM event).
Rebel
Mephisto
Belle
HiTech
many others
I believe the events were better because the programs were present, even
though the authors were not.
>
>
>>3. There was a recommendation of a GM vs Computer event as well. As much as I
>>like the idea, it would be to costly. So what I suggested, and thought of, was a
>>"Fan Ballot" match daily. This would be a match between 2 of the best
>>anti-computer GM/IM's in the world. The fans/observers would vote at the website
>>daily as to which GM would face a program that the fans would like to see. Also
>>in this _no_ program would play a GM more than twice over the tournament, unless
>>a computer operator declined for some reason, and the previous program was an
>>alternate match. Both the program, and GM would not know who each is playing
>>until about an hour before the match is slated to take place, as then we will
>>have a good match, and prepartion will not be a huge factor, only the actual
>>play will. This I feel is the way to go, as then there will be mor coverage of
>>the event, and more fan support. Hopefully people will see why I would like it
>>this way, as funds could be very tight.
>
>
>OK...
>
>
>
>
>>4. I have already spoken briefly to two possible sponsors, and will meet with a
>>third on Monday. Starting to plan can never happen to early. One is the internet
>>sponsor, and the other in the venue/hotel for the event. As I already stated, I
>>would love to see the tournament take place in Edmonton, as there are great
>>facilities, and the location would attract high attendance. In Canada, we also
>>have the cheapest and "fastest" internet in the World.Yyou get higher bandwidth
>>for less money, and this has been proven time and time again.
>
>
>The mistakes made in London should never happen again.
>
>
>
>
>>5. Depending on the amount of programs entered, the event would be as little as
>>6 days to a maximum to 12 days.
>
>
>One week is probably OK, 12 days is much too long.
I agree. Be realistic. Not many people with real jobs are going to take
2 weeks off to play chess, and then have to tell their families "Sorry, but
I can't take any vacation time off this year..."
The ACM events were done over a weekend and two weekdays. Everyone could
come. The WMCCC events are terrible. two days travel + over a week of
games.
>
>
>
>
>>6. Yet to be determined ( amount ), there will be a prize fund. I do not know
>>what the prizes were for this year's tournament, but if anyone knows this would
>>help me out quite a bit.
>
>
>Prizes are not necessary. A trophy for the winner of each category is enough.
>
>If a money prize has to been given, it should be given to a real amateur.
>However it is so hard to decide who is amateur and who is not that I believe it
>is better to not offer any prize.
I won many cash prizes once the ACM started giving them away. I think cash
prizes are for the birds. Give trophies and maybe some travel help. Forget
the cash. Makes the event friendlier, reduces the pressure to 'cheat' and
so forth.
>
>People come to the championship to get the victory, not money.
>
>
>
>
>>7. To minimize costs for authors while thet travel to Canada ( Or possible US ),
>>I am trying to work out a deal where hotel costs would be very minimal, and
>>meals would be covered while the tournament is in session. I have been to many
>>events where some sort of meal was provided, and I think that should be the
>>least we can do. If I can work out a very attractive deal for the hotel, I maybe
>>able to have hotels costs eaten up by the sponsor. This would be idea, and this
>>is what I am hoping for.
>
>
>That would be great.
>
>
>
>
>>I would love any feed back on this, and any other suggestions. This is going to
>>be alot of work, but I happen to have the time to donate to this. I know the
>>possible sponsors well, which gives me a leg up, and hopefully will benefit all
>>involved.
>
>
>The question of the number of rounds and the time controls is important I think.
>
>I believe that it is nowadays crazy to use such long time controls. People sit
>in a tournament hall for hours and have no time to visit the place.
>
>It is also very boring to wait for minutes to get a move.
>
>I believe that there is no significant difference in relative playing strength
>of program playing 40 moves in 2 hours and the same programs playing 40 moves in
>30 minutes.
>
>I think it is stupid to get stuck forever to the 40 moves in 2 hours time
>controls. They have been designed for human players, not for computers.
>
>In 1997, the fastest computers we were using at the WMCCC in Paris were 300MHz
>PII. Next year, 1GHz computers will be the norm. They are more than 3 times
>faster. Why don't we slash the time controls by 3?
Weren't there kryo machines there? At least two kryo alphas were certainly
running.
>
>Playing faster games would give more time to:
>1) either have more free time and enjoy the place (if it is enjoyable :)
>2) play more rounds and have a more reliable result
>
>
>
>
>>My main focus is the fan support, and support we give them, in live games, files
>>immediately after rounds, and interviews to keep the non-attending world
>>attentive, and feel like they were actually at the event. This year's tournament
>>was a disgrace from the fan prospective in coverage, and I want to out do it
>>1000 fold.
>
>
>Absolutely!
>
>
>
> Christophe
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.