Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:12:29 07/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2004 at 17:54:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 04, 2004 at 17:27:11, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On July 04, 2004 at 16:00:39, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On July 04, 2004 at 13:59:26, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>This (and Uri's post about time management) seem to indicate that it would be >>>>advantageous to run an on site fics chess server and remove the need for humans >>>>to move the pieces for the machine. I have forgotten why the need for humans to >>>>move real pieces is not as mind-bogglingly stupid as it first appears. Hey, the >>>>games could be even be relayed through ICC and FICS to people interested in >>>>computer chess ;-) >>> >>>To my knowledge, FICS like servers do not support the time control used at WCCC. >>>Also some remote engines might have problems with a local server. If you allow >>>really remote connections to a FICS server, the whole idea of a tournament, >>>where also programmers meet, is gone. >> >>That idea is gone already when you allow operators who are not programmers. > >Not exactly. > >operators who are not the programmers are allowed only for paying more money. > >>I don't see any point of manual operation at all. If the idea is to make >>programmers meet, the only way to achieve it is to require that the programmers >>have to be present themselves. > > >I agree that there is no logical reason for manual operators. > > As far as I can see, manual vs automatic play is >>almost totally irrellevant with respect to the social aspects ot the tournament. >>If anything, automatic play should be preferable, because it allows the >>programmers to relax better and chat with each other rather than constantly >>staring at the monitor in order to be able to move instantly when the program >>makes its move. > >I totally agree. >It is possible that we could see more programs in case of automatic tournament >when the programmers have to be present or to pay double fee for another person >that is going to be present. > >Not automatic play is needed only for programs that cannot play automatic but it >is possible to do exceptions for these programs that are going to play manually >and I believe that most programs are going to choose to play automatic >if the programmer can decide about it. > >Uri You do _not_ need exceptions. You say "automatic entries only". If someone refuses to do an automatic interface, they just sit on the sideline and watch the event. A commercial company would not do that... IE we did that at the last CCT event and drew 54 programs... Every last one automatic...
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.