Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 2006 WMCC : 2 Suggestions

Author: Mike Byrne

Date: 17:29:41 12/01/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 01, 2003 at 20:02:07, Pham Hong Nguyen wrote:

>On December 01, 2003 at 19:35:15, Mike Byrne wrote:
>
>>You have 3 years to work on this:
>>
>>1.  Improve the computer source challenge - challenges should be me made prior
>>to or after the tournament,  but not during.  If a challenge is made after the
>>tournament, then all of the disqualified contestant games should be stricken
>>from the official record as if they were never played.  All contestants should
>>be advised of the dates that they must provide source prior to/ or after the
>>tournament so they can plan accordingly.  There should be also a procedure to
>>ensure that the source provided is the one actually used by the contestants.
>>I'm sure something could be worked out.
>
>That is good.
>
>>
>>Alternatively, the all sources could be reviewed prior to the tournament by the
>>experts who have signed non-disclosure agreements and why not - if Fritz Ruel
>>has to provide his code - make everyone provide their code for inspection.  I
>>seriously doubt that would pass.
>
>
>- Do you think top programmers agree to show their codes? I doubt that.
                ^^^

Bingo!  That is my point - there is a perceived difference in how the top
programs are treated and how the others are treated.  You using the word "top"
shows exactly what I mean.  So they have to get something in place that all
programmers would follow - even the "top".  And obviously we want the top
programs there - we want the best for the WCCC.


>Obviously they don't want anyone to look in (and may learn) their ideas or blame
>any thing, specially if their codes content few pieces of open source codes,
>e.g., a random function. I think they may boycott the tournament and create
>their own ones instead. Other idea is to invite them without requirement of
>showing codes, but that is not fair with others.
>
>- Suppose one new program says to public that it is a clone of Crafty. Thus, the
>requirement of reviewing this code becomes funny (what do you want to see?).
>

Clones are not allowed - a simple admission of a program being a clone is
grounds for disqualification.  No reveiw is necessary.

>
>>
>>2.  Something has to be done about the draw rule - that game should have never
>>been allowed to continue.  For 30 years, the correct rules were followed - this
>>year it was not - that is a disgrace.
>>
>>Other than that, it was a great tournament [cough, cough].
>>
>>Seriously, whatever goodwill that the tournament generated was torpedo by these
>>two events that were mishandled.  That is a shame.



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.