Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:25 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 14:45:05, Don Dailey wrote: > > >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 Here's my comments: 1. time control. I really don't care. I *hate* game/60. I'd much rather play game/30 with a fischer clock adding 30 seconds. IE no sudden death as that increases the tension level dramatically. 40/2hr is fine. 40/30min is also fine. Sudden death is fine if we force everyone to use a common protocol that can be fed thru a referee program to eliminate the operator... 2. number of players. If it is a WCCC, it ought to be limited, and the thing would best be a round-robin as there would be no doubt about the winner. If it is not going to be called a WCCC, then 64 is ok if you can handle the logistics of that. I'm neutral myself. I found myself not liking the ACM events with half the field strong, half weak, and the first couple of rounds meaning nothing at all. I'd bet we could form a group of people that could make a good assessment of what programs should be invited and which ones should be omitted, based on games played on the servers, in human tournaments, or whatever... just so the games are "verifiable". 3. number of rounds. This is going to definitely limit the quality of the "big iron" programs, because playing in prime-time is not going to be easy. It would be a loss, but perhaps a reasonable loss. There are already problems when you allow parallel programs in, because they necessarily bring a huge computational advantage. Perhaps this should be disallowed, because prime-time games is going to limit this anyway. 4. time-frame. monday-friday is fine, just keep in mind that for academics, with classes going on, that I can't disappear for a week in the middle of the term. In December, yes. There are several others in the same "fix". I hate to miss these, but middle-of-term week-long events are a problem for me. But there's nothing that says that I have to participate, either, so it is either a problem for several, or just for me. If just for me, it should be ignored, as I've missed events before. 5. computer. Loaning a machine would be nice. Nicer would be to get DEC or Intel to provide something as well, and it is possible. Once we get a firm date. I don't want to say anything until it is clear that I can go, however, otherwise I'd hate to say "sorry, but that great box you agreed to loan me won't be needed because I can't get up there." It's an imposition to ask, it would be ugly to then cancel... But I'm game... I certainly know how to pair Swiss tournaments if needed.. and would like to see something happen over here since ACM has died...
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.