Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 23:43:53 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
[snip] >>4- A process applied _prior_ to the event to _all_ participants certifying it >>can follow all the rules of chess in a satisfatory manner e.g. draw offers, >>draws by repetition, draws by the 50 move rule, resignation procedure, etc. and >>anything else I can't think of all without operator interferance. > >What about a simple extension that solves that: The program muse be compatible >with the freely FICS server code, whether it chooses to use xboard/winboard or >a custom interface is up to the programmer. But the tournament is held with >a LAN connecting all machines, so that no operators are needed once each machine >is logged in to the local FICS server. I don't remember, but isn't FICS just like ICC? Doesn't it declare as drawn positions that aren't really drawn? I know that on ICC that positions are declared as drawn due to lack of material that are really drawn. > > >> >>5- Only require the program author to attend on the last couple of rounds (a >>weekend), so that the impact on the program author's bank account, job, family >>life and/or other obligations is minimized. For example, a local volunteer would >>handle the earlier rounds. Hiring a local "volunteer" should still be a more >>affordable option. > >That's not really a solution. The thing has too many rounds. All the >"interesting" games were over by round 5-6 in Graz. The event simply >needs to be long enough to produce the correct results, not a length set >by the whim of the organizers to maximize participant expenditures. I like a large number of rounds. For instance, if (7) below is incorporated with say 10 or 12 participants, you would still have a lot of rounds. Also, Graz had 16 participants and would have worked much better with a double round SS. [snip] >> >>7- Local "zonal" events to pick qualifiers for the main event, which could then >>have a fixed number participants in a round robin. > >That would be a pretty good idea. We talked about that within the ICCA years >ago, but nobody would ever agree to it... We were looking at how the old WCC >(human) matches were set up as a sort of model.
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.