Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:16:23 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 20:29:41, Mike Byrne wrote: >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. As the "When is a Clone a Clone" thread demonstrated, whether or not a program should be regarded as an unallowable clone is a complex, difficult and divisive issue. It is not going to be a simple "one-liner" rule added to the rulebook. Also, although Hyatt will object to my saying this, it should be possible to verify that the top programs are not clones themselves. If this cannot be done, then the remaining programs and their programmers should not be treated differently. Either require verification that ALL entrants to the tournament are not clones, or drop the clone ban entirely. That's my $0.02 worth. Bob D. > >> >>> >>>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.