Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 13:47:03 01/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2002 at 16:40:28, pavel wrote: >On January 15, 2002 at 16:33:18, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On January 15, 2002 at 15:34:19, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:19:38, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:11:26, Volker Richey wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>Michael Borgstaedt told me: >>>>> >>>>>Goliath Light 1.5 was based on a 3rd generation engine. >>>>>(engine v3.x, you will find it in Little Goliath 2000 v3.0 and 3.5 >>>>>also in the ChessBase-Natives Goliath Light 1.0 und 1.5). >>>>> >>>>>The next generation was the engine v4.0. The commercial engine >>>>>was included in the software "Goliath Blitz". >>>>> >>>>>Goliath Blitz is stronger as Goliath Light 1.5. >>>>> >>>>>----------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>>The Goliath Light had no permission to start. >>>>> >>>>>----------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>>Goliath Blitz will play the CCT4. >>>>> >>>>>volker >>>> >>>>I don't agree that engines that have "little" in common should be considered >>>>unique entries if they are written by the same people or members of the same >>>>team. >>>> >>>>For example, Fritz is rewritten by Frans Morsch each time he makes a new >>>>version. One may assume that if he is rewriting it, he's changing approximately >>>>everything. It would not be appropriate to allow each of these to play as a >>>>unique entry. >>>> >>>>One programmer, one entrant. And if there are two or more people on the team, >>>>that counts as one programmer. >>>> >>>>My humble opinion. >>> >>>That was never the intention as far as I can tell. Especially since it's >>>specifically stated by the author that only one engine was given the permission >>>to participate. The one programmer, one entrant clause was specified from the >>>beginning, so nothing new there. >>> >>>However, the participation by authorization of the programmer was a potential >>>source of error, ie. claims by an operator that he/she had received permission >>>to operate engine X. If all claims aren't checked and the engine author isn't >>>checking the list of participants an unauthorized engine might sneak in. Both >>>possibilities are probable if the organizers are sufficiently busy. >>> >>>The chances of Michael Borgstädt trying to participate with two engines or >>>giving two permissions are zero IMHO. >> >>zero, I don't think so ? >>Remember wmccc 1996 in Jakarta, 2 goliaths had been entered (in fact the entry >>names had been different). Next year in Paris, 2 versions of Goliath had been >>announced too; but 1 entry had been withdrawn after some protests in internet >>fora. Ask Thorsten Czub; IIRC he was one of the guys opposing vehemently. >> >>Uli >> >> >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mogens > > >Isn't that the organizer's duty to make sure that this doesn't happen? I think that it wasn't really obvious to the icca people. 2 different authors had been claimed. Later I learned that the 2nd one was the gui author. IMHO, for Jakarta it wasn't that disturbing because there was only a little number of entries and everybody could participate. That would have been much worse in Paris because a lot of programmers had been refused to participate or were on the wait list, respectively. Fortunately, the 2nd entry had been withdrawn there. Uli >if the organizer allows such things, i don't see why you or even Bob won't want >to have several versions of your engine? > >It's not like he said, "hey, I have 2 differant programs here." >it's rather, "I have 2 differant versions here." And if the organizer does'nt >have a problem with that, there is little one can do, since they are the one who >makes up the rules. > > >regards, >pavs.
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.