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 0.01 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.