An idea for a new WCCC format - what do you think?

[Engin]

Hello,
i am agree that the WCCC to play over the Internet, because is to expensive for me to travel around the world needs a lot of money and time.

to stay at home and play over Internet is very cheap, but the cheating problems is more high then live games.

[IWB]

Helli

What will happen if "strange things" happen? What about a WCCC title awarded because of operator intervention in a game? It has already had enough "strange things" happening, "strange decisions" happening, etc, to last a lifetime...

I am sorry, you sound a bit like "everyone is doping, so lets allow it". I dont think that we come to a compromise.
I dont like to have an important computer chess event online because of the bad and easy possibilities already mentioned in this thread!

Bye
Ingo

[CRoberson]

To All,

It seems the idea of allowing some to participate in the whole
tournament online is being met with wild trepidation. So, what do
you think of requiring all to be on site during the second half of the
tournament? The first half would still be completely online.

The second half would be handled online, but all participants are
also in the tournament hall. In the ACCA Pan American Championships,
this format has proven to be more fun and more conducive
to mass human interaction than the ICGA format.

The reason it is more fun is that you can talk to everybody instead
of just the person in front of you. Also, there is no room for mistakes
or clock adjusting. Even the spectators found it easier to talk to
the participants, because nobody is tied to a physical board to
make moves and hit a clock. Also, we display the 4 most
interesting games on a big screen which invited lots of group
discussion.

At WCCC 2002, I talked to nearly everybody that week, but not to everybody.
The ICGA format is a bit restrictive. Having to sit at the board
to physically make a move is so restrictive that you either pee
in your pants or risk losing clock time to go to the bathroom.
So, I would sit until things were guaranteed to go fast and then
run to the bathroom. This is not like a human tournament. If
you take too long of a bio break, your computer moves and the
official timer (manual clock) keeps ticking thus leading to a
disparity between the official clock and the computers clock.
This is why you are allowed to stop the game and adjust the
computer clocks periodically.

Overall, the proposal allows for long time controls, 12 rounds, increases
internet coverage to a maximum level and shortens the physical
presence part of the tournament to make it more feasible for
more people to enter and be on site.

The much earlier poll I did here revealed that the top issue
keeping more from attending was the amount of time away from
work/home was too much. That also increases cost due to hotel
rooms, food and so forth. This proposal resolves those issues
and resolves issues pertaining to internet coverage. Also, it makes
the event more interesting for spectators.

So, what do you think or how would you improve on this proposal?
This is not just talk for me; I am quite serious about improving
things.

[Bill Rogers]

A simple solution to catching cheaters? Why not have everyone who enters the tournement be required to send a copy of the engine that they inend to use in the tournement to the director. In that way if someone is accused of cheating then the game could be replayed by the director using the engine supplied by the contestors. If the play did not match the game played then that player could be dismissed from the tournement.
After the games were over the engines could be returned to their owners if that is what they want.
Bill

[Stan Arts]

A simple solution to catching cheaters?

Another anti-cheat could be to require upload of log-files of thinking output for all (or a selected bunch) to see. Cheating then would still not be impossible but made a bit harder.

Stan

[Bill Rogers]

It looks like between the two of us we have solved the problem for on line chess tournements to eliminate cheating.
Bill

[bob]

Helli

What will happen if "strange things" happen? What about a WCCC title awarded because of operator intervention in a game? It has already had enough "strange things" happening, "strange decisions" happening, etc, to last a lifetime...

I am sorry, you sound a bit like "everyone is doping, so lets allow it". I dont think that we come to a compromise.
I dont like to have an important computer chess event online because of the bad and easy possibilities already mentioned in this thread!

Bye
Ingo

We will just have to agree to disagree. I prefer a large tournament that is actually representative of computer chess, rather than just a few entrants as has been the pattern for recent WCCC events...

You can cheat in either format. They already allow remote machines which means it is as easy to cheat as if you are online...

[Vasik Rajlich]

Hello

The opposing issue is that internet tournaments attract _lots_ of participation due to reduced time required and zero cost to the particpants. WCCC is almost dead. It is on life support at the moment and the prognosis is not good if drastic action is not taken...

I cant and I will not argue against that as it is true - but what will happen with the valuation of a WC title if "strange" things happen? Just think about an accusation and the accused is not reacting anymore. Regardless if he will be thrown out or not the debate (here and elswhere) will never end! Just recently there was and still is a huge debate which cant be used as an example ...

I dont think that a "valuable computerchess tourney" should be held without the physical presence of the programers in one room and agree with Tord in the fact that beeing together with others in a tourney is much more fun.

Bye
Ingo

PS: There is absolutly NO doubt that a WC has to be covered on the internet nowaday in the best possible way to attract viewers!

The programmer may be just as hard to contact during a live event as during an online event.

Requiring an operator at the playing site is nothing more than a hoop to jump through. It deters some participants (and yes, that could include some cheaters).

Vas

[Vasik Rajlich]

I also really like the Mainz events. That format probably requires attaching the final to some major human event - a four-person final in the middle of nowhere might not work quite so well.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea.

a) It's easier to get sponsors and publicity. And hence, rewards both material and nonmaterial, for winning!

I suspect that you can do pretty well on the publicity front simply with good live internet coverage.

b) It's human nature that the incentive to cheat is less if you are facing a person rather than in the anonymity of the internet.

These 'human nature' arguments only address amateur cheaters, who won't get very far anyway. Let's just try to understand the actual loopholes and think about what can be done about them.

Vas

[Vasik Rajlich]

To All,

It seems the idea of allowing some to participate in the whole
tournament online is being met with wild trepidation. So, what do
you think of requiring all to be on site during the second half of the
tournament? The first half would still be completely online.

The second half would be handled online, but all participants are
also in the tournament hall. In the ACCA Pan American Championships,
this format has proven to be more fun and more conducive
to mass human interaction than the ICGA format.

The reason it is more fun is that you can talk to everybody instead
of just the person in front of you. Also, there is no room for mistakes
or clock adjusting. Even the spectators found it easier to talk to
the participants, because nobody is tied to a physical board to
make moves and hit a clock. Also, we display the 4 most
interesting games on a big screen which invited lots of group
discussion.

At WCCC 2002, I talked to nearly everybody that week, but not to everybody.
The ICGA format is a bit restrictive. Having to sit at the board
to physically make a move is so restrictive that you either pee
in your pants or risk losing clock time to go to the bathroom.
So, I would sit until things were guaranteed to go fast and then
run to the bathroom. This is not like a human tournament. If
you take too long of a bio break, your computer moves and the
official timer (manual clock) keeps ticking thus leading to a
disparity between the official clock and the computers clock.
This is why you are allowed to stop the game and adjust the
computer clocks periodically.

Overall, the proposal allows for long time controls, 12 rounds, increases
internet coverage to a maximum level and shortens the physical
presence part of the tournament to make it more feasible for
more people to enter and be on site.

The much earlier poll I did here revealed that the top issue
keeping more from attending was the amount of time away from
work/home was too much. That also increases cost due to hotel
rooms, food and so forth. This proposal resolves those issues
and resolves issues pertaining to internet coverage. Also, it makes
the event more interesting for spectators.

So, what do you think or how would you improve on this proposal?
This is not just talk for me; I am quite serious about improving
things.

Charles,

there are a lot of good ideas here. And yes, there will always be some resistance to change. Some of the points are good and should be considered.

I suspect that you won't be able to get high participation without allowing some form of internet-only play. On the other hand, if you get a sponsor related to the physical site (fe. a human chess event), then allowing internet-only play may be tricky. Maybe a hybrid solution (like Mainz) would work in that case.

The KISS solution is to run it like your WRCCC from last summer. That is perhaps not absolutely optimal, but you already have experience with it and it's a ton better than nothing.

Anyway, good luck. If I can help somehow, please let me know.

Vas