Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 16:40:27 02/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2005 at 12:52:59, Peter Skinner wrote: >On February 24, 2005 at 06:44:45, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>_CCT_ should be an author's tournament. Operators should not be allowed unless >>intimately involved with the software development - and then by exception. >> >>Frank > >This is one of the many changes I have written down already for next year's >event. It was a rule in the beginning, and should be again. The only exception >would be a GNUChess/TSCP entrant to even out participants. > >The last two or three years of CCT have begun to get away from that, and I would >like to see it get _back_ to that. > >Peter I think CCT SHOULD be an author's only tournament. That is what makes it so great and Anthony's win this year and all the other CCT winners in prior years so specical. The last two years has really put CCT on the map for being a well run, organized tournament for the top programs. My thoughts were to have these "fun" VOCCT tournament for those of us who are not in the programmer's "club". We may have no authors, I can with that. Let's face it , there is a very larg pool of non authors who enjoy these great works of programmimg. But we must have only one version of any one program, or else it would just be Shredder9 or Zappa swap meet. But the operators will be able to use their own books and special settings as they see fit. I would think the commcercial programmers would encourage this activity as it could definitley lead to higher sales. Also, my thoughts were to encourage GM to compete - since many is us want to see how these programs really do against real GMs. We do see very much of that data any more. Therefore, we must incent the GMs financially to put themselves on the line. I'm also interested to see how well these advanced players (cyborg) do against programs.
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.