Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:24:48 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 13:44:20, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 13:17:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... >> > >Having the tools you can do everything. > >Applying your analogy to a prison, you basically argue that it doesn't matter >whether a prison has locked doors and high walls or not, because a prisoner can >always escape having the necessary tools... No, that isn't what I said at all. I said that to make it cheat-proof, will cost way too much for the event to be practical. IE a prison is _not_ a cheap thing to build or operate. I can absolutely design a cheat-proof environment for a tournament. But it would be wildly expensive, and completely unenjoyable since no humans would be allowed inside. :) > >Having the tools it is possible fire a missile right into the White House. You >would then argue that if someone wants to kill the president, he would do so >anyway, so no need to have any security in place. It would be a lot harder to do that than you could imagine. They _do_ have enough money to spend to make that unlikely. :) > > > > > > >>> >>>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? > >World Computer Chess Champion. > Anybody can use that title. Did you notice that there were two _human_ world chess champions the last time you looked? :) > > >> >> >> >> >>>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 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.