Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:53:32 01/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2002 at 13:34:29, Ed Schröder wrote: >On January 03, 2002 at 12:42:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On January 03, 2002 at 12:29:10, Will Singleton wrote: >>[snip] >>>That we are human doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion. In business, or >>>life in general, one cannot trust blindly. Prudent due diligence requires >>>verification. Trust, if you like, but verify. This enhances, and in fact >>>enables competition, far from detracting from it. >>> >>>Verification could be done fairly easily, if people felt that the CCT >>>tournaments were actually important. Logs and real-time pv's are a start, but >>>other methods could be developed. >> >>Too bad that nobody thinks it is important. >> >>The WMCCC has become the WMCCC[Europe] and for many sessions now, very good >>programs have not entered because it is too expensive to fly to Europe every >>contest. >> >>With the internet, every different program on earth could participate and make a >>fascinating competition that only costs modem connect time, internet bandwidth >>or whatever (clearly cheaper than airplane tickets and a hotel). >> >>People in South America could play. People in Australia and New Zealand could >>play. Expense would cease to be an object, so a clever university student on a >>shoestring budget could compete on an even keel with someone who was >>independently wealthy. >> >>The audience is potentially enormous. The only obstacle (it seems) is fear of >>cheating. And (strangest of all) nobody seems to think it is worthwhile to >>remove that obstacle. >> >>I find it an absurd situation. > > >It is an absurd situation indeed, CCT has the potential to replace the WCCC and >it will replace all important tournaments as soon as a solution is found that >deals with cheating. It ain't right to be your own tournament director, or? > >I think we better can start a discussion about solutions then arguing about the >current rules. Now, I think this is really productive (which is how I always feel about things I want to have happen!) ;-) Some potential solutions: 1. Provide the binaries 2. Provide the logs 3. If there is a book question, a copy of the book could be given to an agreed upon independent arbiter. The arbiter could verify the presense or absense of some path in the book by a utility provided by the vendor/programmer. The veracity could be ensured by testing a few absurd paths, and then the one in question. 4. The online sessions could be supervised at *local* universities with supervision and audiences to make things like human intervention less probable. 5. A lifetime ban for anyone caught cheating. We need to make cheating as embarassing and expensive as possible. Abject humiliation would be the goal. Other ideas?
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.