Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:08:55 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 00:08:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 11:07:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 09, 2004 at 03:54:25, Mark Winands wrote: >> >>>RULES FOR THE 12TH WORLD COMPUTER-CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP >>> >>>Ramat Gan, Israel >>> >>>4-12 July, 2004 >>> >>>The Board of ICGA >>> >>> >>>From July 4-12, 2004 the 12th World Computer-Chess Championship will take place. >>>It is the second time that it is organized by the ICGA. Below we recall a few >>>decisions from the Maastricht Triennial Meeting in 2002. There the ICGA was >>>established and it was decided that a WCCC should be held annually. The >>>observation was clear: all kinds of differences between microcomputers, personal >>>computers, “normal” computers, and supercomputers were in some sense obsolete >>>and the classification thus was considered artificial. So was the division into >>>the classes of single processors and multiprocessors. Even the distinction >>>between amateur and professional was at stake. Is not the real amateur a >>>professional? Or the other way round? For organizational matters we have kept >>>this difference, since for amateurs traveling and housing is already expensive. >>>Being treated as a professional may be agreeable, but if you have to pay for it >>>then it might be less agreeable. As in previous years we have maintained three >>>groups here, viz. the amateurs, the semi-professionals, and the professionals. >>>Below we provide the rules for the 12th World Computer-Chess Championship, at >>>which a permanent ICGA trophy is at stake (i.e., the winner may keep this >>>trophy). Moreover, it was agreed at the Maastricht meeting that the Shannon >>>Trophy would be retained by Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky for a period of three >>>years. From the 13th World Computer-Chess Championship the Shannon Trophy will >>>be awarded annually. Finally, we have split the rules into a section of general >>>rules and a section of tournament rules. >>> >>> >>> >>>GENERAL RULES >>> >>> >>> >>>1. The World Computer-Chess Championship 2004 is the 12th in a series of >>>World Computer-Chess Championships. It follows the tournament rules given below. >>> >>>2. The tournament will be an 11-round Swiss-system event, using standard >>>(non-accelerated) Swiss pairings. The provisional playing schedule was given on >>>page 293 of the December issue. >>> >>>3. The winner of the Tournament will be awarded the ICGA Trophy and the >>>title of World Computer-Chess Champion 2004. No other titles following from the >>>results of this tournament will be awarded (Hence, no Amateur title, no >>>Microcomputer title, and no single-processor title, as well as no >>>multi-processor title). >>> >>>4. There will be a separate 9-round Swiss tournament for another ICGA Trophy >>>and the title World Computer Speed Chess Champion. >>> >>>5. Unless otherwise specified, rules of play are identical to those of human >>>tournament play. In particular this holds for claiming a draw with respect to >>>the three-times-repetition rule (see ICGA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, p. 218). If a >>>point is in question, the Tournament Director has the right to make the final >>>decision (with due respect to the Committee of Appeal). >>> >>>6. Each game is played on a chessboard with a chess clock provided by the >>>Tournament Committee. >>> >>>7. At the end of each game, both teams are required to hand in a game >>>listing to the Tournament Director in electronic (PGN) form. >>> >>>8. The Tournament Director will be Professor H. Jaap van den Herik. He has >>>the power to designate assistants with the appropriate power to decide in cases >>>of dispute. Dr. Jos Uiterwijk will act as Assistant Tournament Director. >>> >>>9. In the event of any rule disputes, or changes necessitated by >>>circumstances at the time, the Tournament Director’s decision shall be final >>>(with due respect to the Committee of Appeal). >>> >>>10. The members of the Appeal Committee will be agreed upon during the players’ >>>meeting on July 4, 2004. >>> >>>11. The entry fees for the WCCC (exclusive of membership fee of the ICGA for >>>2004 for at least one person) are as follows: >>> >>> Amateur: Euro 25 >>> >>> Semi-professional: Euro 250 >>> >>> Professional: Euro 500 >>> >>> >>> >>>The definitions are the same as used in the past. They read as follows. >>> >>> “Amateur”: programmers who have no commercial interest in their program, and >>>are not professional game programmers. Applications for amateur classification >>>must supply information to justify their claim. >>> >>> >>>“Semi-professional”: Any program submitted by an employee or associate from a >>>games-programming company. The program’s name must not be derived from or >>>similar to a commercial product. >>> >>> >>>“Professional”: A program whose name is the same as or derived from a commercial >>>product. >>> >>>Any entry received after June 15, 2004 will be subject to a penalty fee, >>>doubling the above fee. >>> >>>Entry forms are available at http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/wccc2004. The final >>>acceptance of an entry is by the Board of ICGA. Notification of acceptance will >>>be given on June 25, 2004 or even earlier if required. >>> >>> >>>TOURNAMENT RULES OF THE 12th WORLD COMPUTER-CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP >>> >>>1. Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. At >>>least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the >>>program, otherwise the entry fee for the program is doubled. >>> >>>3. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. >>>Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code >>>written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in >>>their application details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives >>>of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid >>>by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a >>>listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on >>>demand to the Tournament Director. >>> >>>3. Participants are required to attend an organizational meeting on July 4, 2004 >>>prior to the start of the tournament for the purpose of officially registering >>>for the tournament. Operational rules will be finalized at that meeting. >>> >>>4. The format of each tournament and the rate of play will generally be >>>determined by the Tournament Director according to the number of programs >>>entered and any other relevant factors. The 12th World Computer Chess >>>Championship (WCCC) will be a Swiss-system event with 11 rounds in which the >>>rate of play will be 60 moves in 2 hours followed by the rest of the game in 30 >>>minutes. >>> >>>5. An operator error made when starting a game or in the middle of a game can be >>>corrected only with the approval of the Tournament Director. If an operator >>>enters an incorrect move, the Tournament Director must be notified immediately. >>>Both clocks will be stopped. The game must then be backed up to where the error >>>occurred. Clocks will be corrected and the settings at the time when the error >>>occurred will be reinstated using whatever information is available. Both sides >>>may then adjust their program parameters with the approval of the Tournament >>>Director. The Tournament Director may allow certain program parameters to be >>>changed. >>> >>>6. All monitors must be positioned so that the operator’s activities are clearly >>>visible to the opponent. An operator may only: [a] enter moves, and [b] respond >>>to a request from the computer for clock information. This latter activity must >>>be observed by the Tournament Director or his designate. If an operator needs to >>>enter other information, it must be approved ahead of time by the Tournament >>>Director. The operator may not query the system to see if it is alive without >>>the permission of the Tournament Director. >>> >>>7. A team must receive permission from the Tournament Director to change from >>>one computing system to another. >>> >>>8. Tie-breaking: (a) if precisely two participants are tied for first place, two >>>play-off games of one hour per side are to be played. At the longest, such a >>>match may take four hours. Should that match be drawn, then one sudden death[1] >>>game should be played (White 12 minutes, Black 10 minutes); (b) whenever two or >>>more teams have an equal number of points, a tie-ranking order is defined as >>>follows. The dominant ranking is by the sum of the opponents’ scores. If there >>>is still a tie, the sum of the respective programs’ cumulative scores after each >>>round (i.e., score after round-1 + score after round-2 + …. + score after >>>last-round) will be used; (c) if three or more participants are tied for first >>>place, then the two participants ranked most highly are to be determined by the >>>tie-ranking order in (b). This pair of participants then play off as in (a). >> >> >> >>This seems to simply be _wrong_. >> >>White gets _more_ time in the sudden-death playoff? The only way that makes >>sense is if a draw is treated as a win for black. >> >>This needs to be clarified or re-done. More traditional would be _black_ gets >>12 minutes, white gets 10, to compensate for white's opening advantage. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>9. For the ply-off procedure for the first place as given in rule 8, the colour >>>assignment is as follows. In the first match game the colours are reversed with >>>respect to the game played in the tournament. In the sudden-death game the >>>following rules apply: (1) if possible, the colour division in the tournament >>>(play-off match inclusive) will be settled at 7 – 7; if this is impossible then >>>(2) the colours of the game played in the tournament will be reversed. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>[1] The outcome of a sudden-death game is defined as follows. White wins the >>>sudden-death game if White wins the game, otherwise Black wins. >> >>Seems like a silly way to award a title like "World Computer Chess Champion". I >>think I would prefer to be black. I believe his odds are better than whites, >>since a draw for black is a win for black... >> >>With so many rounds, and so few players, why not knock off the playoff crap and >>just use sum of opponent's and so forth? > >In case of a half a round robin by definition everyone has the same sum of >opponents. We aren't playing a half-round-robin... > >Secondly it would be very unfair to let SOP decide in case of 14 participants >and 11 rounds, because if you manage to tie with Shredder it means shredder is >already champion as it is ranked #1 in the first round, which means that if you >play the first round against The Crazy Bishop that you have like 3 Sum of >Opponent points less for sure than Shredder. That is why (a) there are too many rounds; (b) seeding is critical. Get it right and the right program wins by SOP. Get it badly wrong and it is a crap-shoot as to who wins... > >>It worked just fine for 25 years of ACM events and previous WCCC events I have >>attended. > >Your impression is also based upon 7 rounds and 30 participants. No idea what you mean. Through 1989 WCCCs were 5 rounds. I don't recall the max participants but we never had 32 for sure. 5 rounds is enough. > >It never worked well. In fact. I have seen in person the tie between Shredder >and Ferret in 1999 and i felt real real bad after the world champs that i had >not scored enough points for Bruce, because Stefan was given the title for >having 0.5 points more sum of opponents than Ferret. That's the way things go. I've lost and won on tie-breaks. That is better than a blitz playoff. > >This based upon the fact that Shredder had been ranked higher at start of the >championship than Ferret. In fact even if last round i would not have been >paired against woodpusher (which also had played Ferret) the title would have >been Ferret's. > >I personally would never want to come in such a dispute. The rules as proposed >now decide the title based upon games and not by some amateur claiming a draw or >not. Last year for example we had a clear tie Fritz versus Shredder. Both wanted >to play that playoff. 1 extra day of publicity. Chessbase did *not* complain. In >a clear playoff they could decide who was strongest. Shredder won. Easy. It is a >fact you were not against the rule that triggered the decision in the Jonny >game. What on earth are you talking about? I was _completely_ against the decision, which _was_ contrary to the rules being used. "Humans can enter moves and answer questions about the time... nothing more"... > If you scroll up the text some you will see that rule. You do not complain >against it here. So in a similar case crafty-jonny the point would go to crafty >in 2004, just like it went in 2003 to Shredder. > Again, no it would not. Because _I_ would not play on in such a game. I would call the TD over, say "my opponent is violating the rules" and this game is a draw. Period. I have done it before, in fact... >The important fact is however that buchholz (SOP) did not decide last >tournaments. From 2000,2001,2002,2003 there was a clear winner. Either decided >by tie or by having clearly more points. > >That's much better than deciding based upon 0.5 sum of opponents in the first >round who gets the title and who will be forgotten in history by most. I agree a clear winner is better. But a blitz game to decide is just stupid. > >However i do not understand your complaint about the 11 rounds in one other >respect. Some years ago many complained loud that 7 rounds was too little, so >now it is 11 rounds and i personally feel that 11 rounds is definitely better. I >would prefer however to play 3 rounds a day and make the event 5 days. 1 day >with 1 round and a blitz championship, 2 days with 2 rounds and 2 days with 3 >rounds. 11 rounds in total. First, 11 rounds is simply the wrong number of rounds. The last rounds are meaningless. Better would be a RR where the top seeds don't meet until the later rounds keeping interest up for the entire event. Second, barring a RR, each round could be 2 games, alternating colors. Use normal pairing rules now except that the "alternating color" requirement is not needed. And now since this is effectively 6 rounds of 2 games each round, the last few rounds _will_ be meaningful. Third, one game per day is a waste of time. This event could be played in 5 or 6 days at 2 rounds per day. Or automate the thing and play 3 rounds per day with no operators needed. > >In chess weekend tournaments sometimes up to a 100 players play 3 rounds a day >themselves. That's pretty exhausting, but nothing as simple as operating a >chessprogram and you are even allowed to correct mistakes, which in a real >chessgame you are not allowed. Every human event I entered Cray Blitz or Crafty in played 3 rounds per day. And I even played in tornado events where we played 9 rounds in two days... And the humans had a good time. > Further an exhausting world champs is not a >problem in itself. It is a world champs! Just touching a piece there or >promoting with a pawn to the promotion square already means you got a major >problem. No such problems with the world champs, that is the hard fact. > >I play many tournaments a year. > >Usually i play : world champs, paderborn, ict, dutch champs, and when possible i >join cct too. That's currently about 2 months of tournament days and direct >preparation/travelling days for the tournaments that i lose. > >I do not dare to explain why i have zero holidays a year. They all go lost to >computerchess events! > >It is a hard fact however that the world champs is something special in the >calendar and when that is a few more days, then so be it. > >Let's look forward to good weather in Israel! > >>>www.cs.unimaas.nl/wccc2004
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.