Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:17:49 07/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1998 at 19:28:07, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On July 12, 1998 at 17:01:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 12, 1998 at 16:33:18, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>>>if you are talking about the WCCC, never fear...I'll do my best to have >>>>>an entry ready and I'll be there, because these events are only 5 rounds >>>>>with 2 on the weekend. >>> >>>By the way, WCCC will be a 5 day event, Monday through Friday. I think >>>it will be 1 round on Monday, and then 2 per day to get 9 rounds. >>> >>>The time control will be faster than the old 40/2 time control. >>>This was all discussed at the last WCCC. > >Excellent idea, those 5 round events were pretty insane in my opinion - too >much emphasis on luck. Just look at the last WCCC where Fritz score a freak win >over Deep Blue. Something like game in 60 would be sensible, allowing >2 or 3 rounds per day. > > >>> >>>- Don >> >> >>Someone didn't think very clearly. The reason the WCCC (and ACM) events >>have been held partially on weekends was to make it easier for big-iron >>computer chess programs to enter. We never had any problem with time on >>saturday/sunday, but monday-friday was always a real problem, because that's >>when these computers are heavily used. > >Having the bulk of the tournament on a weekend sounds sensible if it allows >the 'big-iron' machines to play. > >> >>The WCCC does *not* need 32 entries. It should be limited to 16 at most, >>and that's not hard to do. There is no need in making it "open to everyone" >>because that only drives up the number of rounds. with 16 programs, 4 rounds >>will get a clear 1st place (ignoring draws) while 5 rounds gets a clear 1-4 >>places (again ignoring draws). The micro-based programs will not have a >>problem, but there's not a lot of chance in getting top-of-the-line big >>iron for 5 days, 9 rounds, which means rounds in *prime-time* during the >>day. > >Do you really think the Computer Chess World would be best served by >a 16 player tournament? This seems like a dated concept - especially >to the *many* programmers who would likely be excluded :-). >Surely the aim of such a tournament is not only to establish the champion >program/machine combination, but to stimulate activity in the field. > my response would be that it *is* the WCCC. Can you or I get into the human world chess championship cycle? No chance. The WMCCC is ideal to let everyone in. For the WCCC I'd much prefer to see a reduced field with fewer rounds to make large machines possible again. As far as "getting excluded" I found it quite difficult to go to the WCCC anyway, because we used to have the annual ACM event. I had to choose between them and always missed the ACM event when there was a WCCC. With the WMCCC event going yearly, everyone still gets a chance to play, and the WCCC is held for the programs considered to be truly strong, like the old candidates matches and so forth. We even discussed a two-tier event like the old zonal/inter-zonal format where in off-WCCC years, a "qualifier" could be held just prior to the WCCC year to select programs. That was done in 1977, where the top 4 from the ACM event were automatically invited to the 1977 WCCC in Toronto. But we still had too many programs in 1977, and most years since. >The best solution is to make it a large tournament, with a sufficiently >large number of rounds (eg. 9) to make it a decent tournament. A >slightly reduced time control is a very small price to pay for the >advantages of this format. > the math for 9 rounds is hopeless... IE there are two good ways to run a tournament, as the "humans" have found out: 1. a swiss where rounds <= log2(players). 2. a round-robin a swiss with rounds > log2(players) is a waste of time after a couple of extra rounds. All you are doing is just playing games, because you have already seen the best 3-4 programs play each other by the time you get to log2(players). If you make the stupid mistake Jaap made at the last WMCCC and use accelerated pairings, you make this worse, and not better. But simply stated, too many rounds is no better than too few, unless too many becomes a round robin... As far as the time control, I hate to see it change. Humans play 40/2. I'd like to see computer events do the same, so the games are somewhat comparable. Also because every WCCC since 1974 (first one) have been 40/2, as have all of the ACM events that I have attended. >Regards, >Peter
This page took 0.02 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.