Author: Volker Richey
Date: 12:43:16 11/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2002 at 12:28:49, Will Singleton wrote: >On November 29, 2002 at 07:50:59, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On November 28, 2002 at 20:38:22, Volker Richey wrote: >> >>>On November 28, 2002 at 14:43:58, David Rasmussen wrote: >>> >>>>I suddenly can't find anything about it: >>>> >>>>What information is supposed to be kibitzed during play/search? >>>> >>>>/David >>> >>>Your are right. There must be shown an example at the cct5-site. >>> >>>The current evaluation, depth, book or not, tablebases (if yes, how many >>>moves picked from the tablebases), predicted moves, may be the >>>first 2 moves are enough. >>> >>>Other variations are welcome. >>> >>>Volker >> >>First of all Volker thank you for organising the tournament, again. No doubt >>you will get more suggestions than support. >> >>When the rules are finalised (and only then) I think it would be helpful to post >>them on your site. There has been some discussion in CCC on possible options, >>but as far as I can tell no visible conclusion. >> >>On the kibitzing (which I support) it may be helpful to be as clear as possible, >>but also as flexible as possible. I imagine the intention is to have some >>evidence that the engine produced the move itself. >> >>I think I understand your suggested scheme above, although the first two moves >>of the PV will cause me a problem sometimes as I do not extract the PV from the >>hash table. >> >>Frank > >I think the intention of the kibitz requirement is to indicate automatic >operation, and not to specify the exact data output. I don't think Volker is >going to make anyone change his output to conform to some arbitrary standard. >His existing rules, posted on his site, look good enough to me. > >Will Yes, there are no strong rules for the kibitz-option
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.