Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:17:40 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 11:35:27, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 11:11:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 13, 2003 at 05:31:25, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 2003 at 21:11:15, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 2003 at 18:49:40, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>There's no way to export a Chessbase book. >>>> >>>>You have Chessbase to thank for that. Let's be clear about who is to blame for >>>>you not being able to participate. It is not the fault of the volunteers who >>>>work hard to run the CCTs make good, reasonable decisions that make for a better >>>>event and promote progress. >>> >>>Well, if without Chessbase engines you'll have a better event and make progress, >>>I won't stand in your way. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>What we have to wait for is enough interest in CCT that you can't afford to >>miss it. Also, for the record, the most demanded feature for chess engines >>by those that buy every one they can get their hands on is an automatic >>interface for the chess servers. I don't quite understand ignoring that >>demand. Or, for the first one to do it right, that level of extra sales. >> >>If the ICGA takes their responsibilities seriously, an automatic interface >>will eventually be mandated there although I personally prefer the CCT-sized >>event with 50+ participants rather than 16. > >A CCT style tournament can never turn into an official event, since you cannot >prevent any kind of cheating. I can run 5 engines on different computers, see >which analysis I like, and then force my engine to play that move by feeding the >move via a file it checks once a second. How are you going to prevent that? By >looking at the analysis I output?! I can force my engine to print a spurious PV >starting with the move I want it to play... I'll make a wager. I will play my program against your program. We meet at a neutral site and we both bring our hardware there so that each can see that the other is not running something funny. We play the game, with my running Crafty. And at the end of the game, I will prove to you that _every_ move was played by Chess Tiger, or another program of my choice. How? I'll tell you in another post. But the point is you can _not_ prevent me from cheating if I want to, unless you choose to spend millions of dollars to provide the following playing facility: (1) RF-proof. _no_ RF signals can enter or leave the facility; (2) power-inverter to make sure that the A/C power does not carry any signal in from the outside. (power modems are a _very_ common thing in computing, where phone lines are not always handy nor possible. (3) no windows. Don't want any stray IR signals either. (4) technicians to completely disassemble the machines. Don't want any unusual hardware inside that might be running other programs. (5) sound-proof. Don't want any low-freq sound data in there either. (6) supply the operators. Don't want either of us touching the keyboard. (7) in fact, we have to be outside the facility. Don't want me to carry in any sort of signaling device for "move now" or "think longer". In short, it would cost millions to provide a secure playing site where no possibility of cheating could occur. Oh yes, you _can_ trust the impartial operators you hire, right? I mean a _really_ large sum of money couldn't buy their cooperation, right? "mission impossible". If you can't solve the problem, then you go on to the next issue, which is to make the event widely available and affordable and fun. And if someone is dishonest, they will be dishonest no matter what you do... > >The only reason why CCT tournaments are popular is that the stakes are not high. >Most programmers join CCT only to test their engine against others (speaking for >myself, I will enter a totally experimental and untested version of Falcon). And that is a perfectly _fine_ reason for entering. There is no real "gain" for winning a tournament, except to say "I won that". However, if you are commercial, and you put it on the box (I won the 2004 CCT with 60 competitors vs I won the 2003 WCCC with 16 competitors) I think either carrys equal prestige... >But >when you give an official title to the winner, expect many (if not most) >participants to cheat in various degrees starting from "move now" to playing all >the moves as dictated by the operator. > What "official title"? European World Computer Chess Champion? CCT-6 Computer Chess Champion? ACM International Computer Chess Champion? >The physical presence of the programmers (or operators) is inevitable for an >official event, especially one giving the title "World Computer Chess Champion" >to the winner. Want to bet it will continue to be that way? This _is_ the information age. Now many conferences are done via "the grid" (on the web). For the very reason we are discussing the problems with the ECGA/ECCC events... Cost, time, convenience. I've attended _several_ conferences on the web, it works well.
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.