How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Skinner
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Full name: Peter Skinner
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Peter Skinner » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:25 pm

chrisw wrote: Well, what you say to Harvey is your own business, although personally I wouldn't give him the time of day. I guess, however, in the light of the PM contents, the question potential participants will want answered before handing over their $100 is this:

Will you commit to run this tournament with the absolute intention of making it a success?
Absolutely. I will run/organize it just like I would the CCT.

That means:

1. Updates as to who/what has been entered.
2. Help available to those requiring assistance with engine/interface/account setups. This consumes more time than anything.
3. Posting live updates/games/results as they happen on this forum and many others. I usually post mid-round and end of round updates along with the next set of pairings.
4. Running a smooth event. I think everyone can agree I run a professional event. Rounds start on time, results are made available to everyone, and disputes handled privately.
5. Getting the event recognized. I have had Albert Silver annotate games previously, done interviews for articles..

Nothing will change. And I mean nothing.

Peter
I got kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bible's to the fiction section.

chrisw
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by chrisw » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:27 pm

Peter Skinner wrote:
chrisw wrote: Well, what you say to Harvey is your own business, although personally I wouldn't give him the time of day. I guess, however, in the light of the PM contents, the question potential participants will want answered before handing over their $100 is this:

Will you commit to run this tournament with the absolute intention of making it a success?
Absolutely. I will run/organize it just like I would the CCT.

That means:

1. Updates as to who/what has been entered.
2. Help available to those requiring assistance with engine/interface/account setups. This consumes more time than anything.
3. Posting live updates/games/results as they happen on this forum and many others. I usually post mid-round and end of round updates along with the next set of pairings.
4. Running a smooth event. I think everyone can agree I run a professional event. Rounds start on time, results are made available to everyone, and disputes handled privately.
5. Getting the event recognized. I have had Albert Silver annotate games previously, done interviews for articles..

Nothing will change. And I mean nothing.

Peter
OK, thanks.

chrisw
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by chrisw » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:43 pm

michiguel wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
chrisw wrote:
michiguel wrote:
Jeroen wrote:It appears that the real reason for this tournament is slightly different:

The whole point of the tournament is to prove how utterly useless it is, and what a waste of time it will be. Nothing more. The reason the ICGA has good tournament rules (And I try to follow the same rules with the CCT) is because it weeds out the crap. I'm out to prove that with 90 derivatives entering, it will become what everyone bitches about. A hardware/book war. Nothing more.

But you are making a huge mistake in thinking that this is a waste of time and 'utterly useless'. People want to see:

A) the strongest programs
B) the best hardware
C) the best books

Remember Freestyle? That was a HUGE success. And in Freestyle 90%-100% of the players used Rybka. Basically you are organising a Freestyle tournament with more variety and the 'engine only' option!
You are quoting someone who misquote Peter. He did not say that. Someone else did it sarcastically. Please, people, make sure the quotes are correct, otherwise this turns into a mess. I will encourage the person who started the misquote to fix the problem.

Miguel
Would the moderators please investigate this "misquote" to determine if (a) it was deliberate and (b) specifically placed onto this forum and (c) malicious and, if this is found to be the case, take strongest possible action against the perpetrator?
The quote is 100% accurate. The moderators should check before acting.
The misquote was referred to Robert, who quoted Peter, replying to you Harvey. In your post, you seemed to quote Peter out of thin air and it was not clear what it was. It looked sarcastic to me, but I am nobody to judge that. I did not touch your post, but I made a comment on Robert's post. So, I did not "act" on your message, and that is the main purpose of my yet another clarification. If Peter is fine with you posting a private message, we have nothing to say. EDIT: But it is not clear this is the case.

Miguel
Miguel,

Will moderators please investigate the truth or otherwise of the following apparent facts:

a) HW has quoted without permission a PM
b) The PM quote was malicious with intent to disrupt or destroy a tournament in the process of being organised on talkchess
c) the motivation for this disruption is rendered more serious by virtue of the commercial nature of the organisation HW represents and its possession of a WCC title from a competing tournament

If you find all or some of the above to be true, I would urge you to consider the action to be a very serious attack on democratic activities on this forum and to impose appropriate and severe penalties on the perpetrator.

User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6388
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by michiguel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:03 pm

chrisw wrote:
michiguel wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
chrisw wrote:
michiguel wrote:
Jeroen wrote:It appears that the real reason for this tournament is slightly different:

The whole point of the tournament is to prove how utterly useless it is, and what a waste of time it will be. Nothing more. The reason the ICGA has good tournament rules (And I try to follow the same rules with the CCT) is because it weeds out the crap. I'm out to prove that with 90 derivatives entering, it will become what everyone bitches about. A hardware/book war. Nothing more.

But you are making a huge mistake in thinking that this is a waste of time and 'utterly useless'. People want to see:

A) the strongest programs
B) the best hardware
C) the best books

Remember Freestyle? That was a HUGE success. And in Freestyle 90%-100% of the players used Rybka. Basically you are organising a Freestyle tournament with more variety and the 'engine only' option!
You are quoting someone who misquote Peter. He did not say that. Someone else did it sarcastically. Please, people, make sure the quotes are correct, otherwise this turns into a mess. I will encourage the person who started the misquote to fix the problem.

Miguel
Would the moderators please investigate this "misquote" to determine if (a) it was deliberate and (b) specifically placed onto this forum and (c) malicious and, if this is found to be the case, take strongest possible action against the perpetrator?
The quote is 100% accurate. The moderators should check before acting.
The misquote was referred to Robert, who quoted Peter, replying to you Harvey. In your post, you seemed to quote Peter out of thin air and it was not clear what it was. It looked sarcastic to me, but I am nobody to judge that. I did not touch your post, but I made a comment on Robert's post. So, I did not "act" on your message, and that is the main purpose of my yet another clarification. If Peter is fine with you posting a private message, we have nothing to say. EDIT: But it is not clear this is the case.

Miguel
Miguel,

Will moderators please investigate the truth or otherwise of the following apparent facts:

a) HW has quoted without permission a PM
b) The PM quote was malicious with intent to disrupt or destroy a tournament in the process of being organised on talkchess
c) the motivation for this disruption is rendered more serious by virtue of the commercial nature of the organisation HW represents and its possession of a WCC title from a competing tournament

If you find all or some of the above to be true, I would urge you to consider the action to be a very serious attack on democratic activities on this forum and to impose appropriate and severe penalties on the perpetrator.
I have dealt privately with the parts. I do not believe they will become friends, but as far as I understand, they requirements and actions should have satisfied each other, already. I hope.

I think we can move on now, avoid distractions, and let the flow of the thread going.

Miguel

User avatar
Rebel
Posts: 4700
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:04 am

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Rebel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:25 pm

Don wrote:
BubbaTough wrote:
Don wrote:
Peter Skinner wrote:
IanO wrote:I'd watch it! Sounds like a fine counterpoint to the restrictiveness of other events. Let the melee begin!

I presume authors would be given precedence if there were multiple entries using the same engine?
Yes, that is a good point.

I would give preference to authors operating their own programs. Once they have entered, no one else could enter the same program as the originating author has entered.

This is a rule from all other tournaments, so I don't see why it shouldn't continue here.

Peter
If there are no questions asked ask and this is open to anything and everything then I want to enter several versions of Komodo too. I can make up different names if that will help.
Just out of curiosity, how many hundreds of dollars of entry fee are you willing to invest in this?

-Sam
My plan is to utilize other people for this. I would let as many people who are willing to help - so I won't have to invest anything. This is what people want so that we can find out once and for all which program is strongest - so I might as well take a shot too. I have many experimental versions of Komodo and one of them could be stronger than anything else - they are deserve to be put in the tournament so that we won't wonder which one is best. In fact I can provide an unlimited number of versions.

Don
:lol:

The WCCC as beta testing.

User avatar
gleperlier
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:03 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by gleperlier » Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:52 pm

Peter, if you don't do something to prevent it, you will have 50 Houdini, 2 Critters, 2 Stockfish and the 5 beta test of Don's Komodo. Look at every tournament on Playchess.

We must see some Chessmaster, Hiarcs, Deep Junior, Deep Shredder, Fritz, Vitruvius, IvanHoe, Rybka, Naum, Chiron etc.

Otherwise your tournament will only be a Houdini contest... where is the fun ?

Gab

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23714
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by hgm » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:07 pm

Ha ha, good joke! Who would be willing to subsidize the prize of one of the Houdinis with $100 without any chances to win whatsoever? You?

The fun is of course in collecting the entrance fees. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by Don » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:09 pm

gleperlier wrote:Peter, if you don't do something to prevent it, you will have 50 Houdini, 2 Critters, 2 Stockfish and the 5 beta test of Don's Komodo. Look at every tournament on Playchess.

We must see some Chessmaster, Hiarcs, Deep Junior, Deep Shredder, Fritz, Vitruvius, IvanHoe, Rybka, Naum, Chiron etc.

Otherwise your tournament will only be a Houdini contest... where is the fun ?

Gab
I agree with you, however this is what people want. From many discussions on this forum you can see that people actually believe it's sensible to just pile on multiple versions of the same basic program, Ivahnoe, Ippohoe, Firebird, Ippodini, Houdini, Ippolit, and surely any private version that someone has tinkered with.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

User avatar
gleperlier
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:03 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by gleperlier » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:15 pm

hgm wrote:Ha ha, good joke! Who would be willing to subsidize the prize of one of the Houdinis with $100 without any chances to win whatsoever? You?

The fun is of course in collecting the entrance fees. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good point...

Gab

User avatar
gleperlier
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:03 pm

Re: How about we settle the WCCC argument?

Post by gleperlier » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:16 pm

Don wrote:
gleperlier wrote:
I agree with you, however this is what people want. From many discussions on this forum you can see that people actually believe it's sensible to just pile on multiple versions of the same basic program, Ivahnoe, Ippohoe, Firebird, Ippodini, Houdini, Ippolit, and surely any private version that someone has tinkered with.
I agree Don...

Gab

Post Reply