Author: Don Dailey
Date: 11:45:05 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 00:17:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Hi Bob, There are a lot of issues here. How we feel about any one of them will probably be affected unduly by our own situation. I believe, as you do, that only the very strongest and capable should be in the world championship. Would I feel this way if I didn't feel like I was a contender? Probably not. Someone made the point however that these things serve other functions too, not least among them to generate interest in computer chess and encourage new programmers. Since we do not have a reasonably objective way to say who should be included and who should be excluded I don't think there is a good reason to exclude anyone. I'm not disagreeing with you in principle however since I do believe that ultimately there should be something like this, where excellence is rewarded and a worthy goal for aspiring programmers might be just to make it to the championships. But based on our current structure I don't think this is reasonable right now. For a long time now, a serious complaint has been limited number of rounds. The world championship being decided by only 5 rounds in a big swiss is almost ludicrous. But having more rounds will require more days, there is no simple way to avoid this. Another consideration was automated games not requiring an operator. But this was very unpopular, because it took a lot of the human element away from these events. We all liked comming to these events, and getting involved in the games, having observers and discussions and the whole ceremony involved which would be lost on a mechanical system of playing. But this now means a LOT of people have to get together for many days, clearly more days than a weekend will support. There will be no possible schedule that will make everyone happy. There would be no tournament if we had to please everyone. I don't see it as being fair to make allowances for any specific group of participants unless it benefits the whole group. They could bend over backwards to support the new programmers, the people with families, the people than can only run on certain days or any segement you can think of. It's just my opinion of course but I think the format of the tournament becomes a more important consideration (within reason) and things like time control and number of rounds, availability of space and so on should be the more important considerations. Having played a couple times in the Dutch computer chess championships I can say that I am very favorable to shorter time controls for computers. This also got strong support at the last world championship. 40/2 is probably very close to ideal for human performance, it's about the longest time control a person can comfortably deal with in a single session and still maintain close to optimal performance. But there is no magic time control for computers. I see no reason in principle that computers must match the same conditions. In fact, based on my Dutch experiences and others too, I find something faster to be highly desirable, it's less fatiguing, more interesting to spectators and easy to operate with full attention. The Dutch was Game in 90 minutes and that was NOT too fast, plenty of time to talk relax and still play high quality games. I think this would be a very positive improvement to the format and of course it greatly facilitates playing more rounds without getting all of us tired and cranky. As a parallel contestant, I can vouch for the fact that running shorter time controls will not help a parallel program. This is one change that I should be opposed to, but I am not because I feel it is in the best interest of computer chess. Peter said it was a small price to pay, but I go farther and say it is a big improvement! In my opinion the game should not be too fast but not dragging on either. There is not a single point I make that is not subject to debate, most of these issues have no right or wrong answers. For instance, perhaps the schedule could change without hurting the other contestants (indeed, as far as I know it hasn't been firmly decided and may just be a suggestion.) I DO know however that the idea of Monday through Friday was not based on screwing anybody, but based on logistics. When the idea was put forward it was based on helping the European visitors arrange their flight schedules. As far as arranging hardware for you, I have offered to let you use a dedicated 4 processor Alpha for the tournament. Pehaps this is small potatoes to you and you can get much more, but the offer still stands if you need it. - Don
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.