Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:06:46 07/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi
Preliminary remark:
I would like to see such events called: "Computer Chess Programmers
Championship".
1) Computers are nothing without their programmers
2) This would eliminate de facto any twin entry
3) This reflects a little better the human dimension of the event
I would like to see a "World Microcomputer Chess Programmers Championship"
(WMCPC or WMCCPC) this year.
On July 14, 1998 at 22:36:25, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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...
Let's not eliminate human operating.
Game/30 with fisher 30s is fine. Could we all agree on this? I guess some will
have problems because they didn't implement fisher clock (it's my case!), but we
have plenty of time to do it before the tournament.
>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".
Let's limit to 32 entries. Why not doing "qualification rounds" before the
event? Maybe we could ask several testers to run these rounds for amateur
programs. I'm thinking about Torsten Schoop for example, but there are others.
Maybe they would be glad to help.
>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.
Most of the programmers that have a "big iron" program have also a microcomputer
program. It is your case, Bob. I suppose Don also has a micro version of
CilkChess, or can easily do a one processor version.
I don't know about you, but I'm personnaly mainly interested in knowing how my
PROGRAM compares to other programs, and not how my HARDWARE compares to others.
That's why I would like to see something close to a uniform platform event. I
know this cannot be the case, because we already have at least 2 classes: PC
programs and Alpha programs.
But maybe we could set a limit in the clock speed. Say 400MHz for x86 computers
and 600MHz for Alphas, so the championship does not turn into a race for the
fastest hardware. The numbers can be discussed.
That's also why I would like to see the championship limited to one processor
per computer.
The problem, as in previous WMCCC, is that every competitor will have to bring
his own hardware. For example, I will have to travel from Guadeloupe with my
computer "on my back". Worse, my current fastest computer is a K5-100MHz. So I
will have to purchase a faster one to compete.
What are we going to evaluate in this championship? The programmer's skill to
write a good chess program, or the programmer's skill to find a good sponsor?
If we rule that the computers will be one processor running up to 400/600MHz, I
think we will have a better idea of who are the best programmers (hence the name
"World Microcomputer Chess Programmers Championship").
>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...
In Paris, we had AMD providing K6-200 computers. Can't we get in touch with
them, or with Intel, to see if they could provide computers?
If we manage to get computers, couldn't we do a close-to-uniform platform event?
I don't care if my opponent has a 50% faster Alpha CPU, but what if he has a 5x
faster computer because I had to bring my old K5-100 on my back?
Christophe
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.