Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 21:01:44 11/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1999 at 21:37:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On November 13, 1999 at 18:39:07, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>1) Only one entry per program. The operator must be the author, or a person >>directly appointed by the author. > >I'm frightened by this "directly appointed" thing. I don't want to deal with >situations where someone sends their program to someone else who has faster >hardware, and that someone else has no idea how to operate the program, has >never operated in a tournament before, perhaps has never played in a tournament, >has questionable morals, and is not accountable to anyone because they are >essentially anonymous. > >I am not trying to make it look like I'm trying to keep anyone on bad hardware, >but I'm trying to make sure that this is an event between people involved with >the programs, rather than having it be an event between random people who have >nothing to do with any of this. > >I don't want to sit in my office for four hours monitoring or operating some >game, while my opponent program's author does something he considers more >important. > I think there are two forms of this problem: 1) The author isn't present at all during the games. 2) The author is present and observes the games, but his program is operated by someone else, presumably because they have a faster computer or a better network connection. Case 1 is annoying, and definitely not in the spirit of the event. Case 2 is less of a problem - if something goes wrong, the author and the operator can probably figure it out pretty quickly. I would fall into case 2. I'd be watching every game, but I'd prefer to run Grok on my friend's Athlon 650 instead of my K6-450. If something went wrong and I couldn't troubleshoot it quickly, I'd simply bring my program back up on my machine. This is a good topic for discussion. How do others feel about this problem? <snip> > >Gotta know whether this will be manual or automatic, and if the operator needs >to be present if an automatic interface is used (I hope and assume yes). The answer to the 2nd question is 'yes' - an operator absolutely must be present even if an automatic interface is used. As for manual vs. automatic, I would think that anybody who has an automatic interface would want to use it, but I would have no problem with somebody doing manual entry. <snip> >>It seems likely that we can get ICC to promote this event. Peter McKenzie and I >>had a conversation with an ICC admin this morning - he's interested in this >>idea. ICC would probably want to call it the "ICC Computer Championship", which >>seems appropriate. ICC could also probably supply one or two admins to act as >>tournament directors. It's possible that we could use one of the automated ICC >>"tomato" bots to generate pairings, but I'm not sure how we'd deal with first >>round seedings... > >Be careful that they don't eat it. ICC could wreck it, for instance they could >arbitrarily state that any (C) account could enter, and suddenly we have fifty >crafties. I strongly suggest that ICC does not determine the rules, and that >they do not determine the participants. I agree 100% - and this issue will not be negotiable with ICC. The last thing anybody wants to see is 50 Craftys, 20 Fritzes, and 10 Chess System Tals. >I'm a little worried about dealing with an ICC tournament director. I would >rather try to get Valvo or someone like that. That would cost money though. > Using ICC admins just seemed the easiest, but if we could find our own TD that would be great. They would have to be willing to do it for free unless ICC wants to pay them. I don't want to charge an entry fee for this tournament. Thanks for you feedback, Bruce. --Peter
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.