Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:27:35 06/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1999 at 02:42:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On June 19, 1999 at 00:44:07, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On June 19, 1999 at 00:18:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 1999 at 22:32:52, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 1999 at 19:44:44, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>I looked up the tournment rules as Bob Hyatt had mentioned that an author had to >>>>>be present when entering a program in the WCCC-99. Bruce had asked this to be >>>>>confirmed so I am presenting the relevant tournament rules here: >>>>> >>>>>Tournament Rules >>>>> >>>>>Paderborn, Germany >>>>>14-20 June 1999 >>>>> >>>>>The Board of ICCA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Below the Board of ICCA provides information on the tournament rules and a >>>>>provisional tournament schedule. For convenience, the times of the Advances in >>>>>Computer Chess 9 Conference are included in the provisional schedule too. >>>>> >>>>> 1.Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. >>>>>At least one of the program developers must attend the championship to operate >>>>>the program. At least 50% of the entering developers, and all developers >>>>>attending the event, must be ICCA members in good standing. No exceptions will >>>>>be made to this rule. >>>>> >>>>> 2.Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programs >>>>>derived from, or including, chess-playing code written by others (for example, >>>>>programs based on CRAFTY), 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 chess-related programs running on the system must >>>>>be available on demand to the Tournament Director. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Albert Silver >>>> >>>> >>>>Rule 1 is an annoying weird rule. Unfortunately, Dr. Hyatt did not realize that >>>>all he had to do was point to someone and say "you're one of the authors" (and >>>>make them an ICCA member) to satisfy the requirement. To stay "honest", he >>>>could have him/her modify the opening book. This rule is not much of an >>>>obstacle and is just silly. Crafty is an interesting and useful benchmark to >>>>measure other programs, since it is strong and well tested in internet play. I >>>>think its non-participation hurts the tourney (and DR. Hyatt). >>> >>> >>>I don't understand the purpose of rule 1, particularly when it is specifically >>>not used in the WMCCC event which is also ICCA-sponsored. Perhaps an attempt >>>to get the programmers together to exchange ideas, but that is a joke is it >>>not? How many commercial programmers exchange anything? Marty is the first >>>to write something and publish it (book learning) that I have seen... and he >>>deserves a pat on the back... now it he will continue that trend. :) >>> >>>Bob >> >>Maybe they just want to be able to talk to someone face to face who has >>competent knowledge about the program in case a problem or dispute arises. If >>that is the motive, it's not unreasonable, just inconvenient. I'm sure they did >>not intend to preclude your programs participation. After all, your programs >>name was incorporated in the 2nd rule! > >I think there are a lot of reasons for the rule. > >First, if most people start sending operators, the event is devalued for those >who come in person. You have to play the strong programs, but any sort of >social opportunity between authors is prevented. > >Second, authors provide continuity and common experience. If my program is >winning against another program, I know how it feels to lose, since I have been >there many times. And if I involved in an incident, it is with both me and my >program the next year, whereas with an operator there is probably a different >operator the next year. > >Additionally, there is a matter of equality and respect. If some other author's >time is considered by whomever to be more important than mine, I feel insulted. > >I'm in favor of author participation. I don't know if I would have gone so far >as to make it a rule, but since it is a rule I don't know why the rule has been >broken. To be fair, I haven't asked. If I see Tony today I'll ask him. > >bruce I've _never_ had problems with a rule... so long as it is enforced in a non- arbitrary manner. That is my only grumble here... it was enforced in a very inconsistent manner...
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.