TalkChess.com

I have posted the details and rules of the event at http://www.cctchess.com.

A final date will be determined shortly.

As you can see at the bottom of the page, there is a blurb stating:

If a program is not open for matches or arrives late for a scheduled round, after 20 minutes the game will be considered a forfeit. This is common to all games such as these including in an online casino such as Intercasino and is instituted in order to eliminate one game holding up the tournament..

That is a paid link to which the event will get $100 from a sponsor. I will be trying to get others as well as a main sponsor for the event. If you or your business would like to gain advertising space on the website and sponsor the event, please contact me via the contact form on the website.

As the rules state, only the original author may enter an engine. This means that Houdini and Rybka will not be able to participate under this format. Houdini is based on Robbolitto and Rybka was based off Fruit. Being they are not the original authors of their respective program, they will not be allowed to participate. If either program wishes to compete, they would have to submit their code for inspection by a panel that I will be selecting shortly.

Discuss as you see fit.

Peter Skinner
IWCCC Tournament Director
www.cctchess.com

Hi Peter,

Is this seen as a replacement for CCT? or will that still remain?

Will there be a wooden spoon?

Ciao

Richard

Richard Allbert wrote:Hi Peter,

Is this seen as a replacement for CCT? or will that still remain?

Will there be a wooden spoon?

Ciao

Richard

CCT will still remain.

Peter Skinner wrote:This means that Houdini and Rybka will not be able to participate ...

In your last post in the other thread you said you favored letting them participate. What changed your mind?

Best
Dan H.

Why so much emphasis on the third stage? It has 48 games, while the double round-robin would only have 12. It seems to me the event would be more interesting if there were, say, 36 games in the round-robin (6 games / pairing) and 24 in stage 3.

In fact, stage 3 seems to make it only less interesting, because the contenders are only tested in how they perform against each other. If all 60 games were in the round robin (10 games per pairing), the numbers one and two would still have played 10 games against each other, but also each 20 games against other candidates. So we would have seen them in action in 50 games.

It would also compress the total duration of the event, as two games could be played in parallel.

hgm wrote:Why so much emphasis on the third stage? It has 48 games, while the double round-robin would only have 12. It seems to me the event would be more interesting if there were, say, 36 games in the round-robin (6 games / pairing) and 24 in stage 3.

In fact, stage 3 seems to make it only less interesting, because the contenders are only tested in how they perform against each other. If all 60 games were in the round robin (10 games per pairing), the numbers one and two would still have played 10 games against each other, but also each 20 games against other candidates. So we would have seen them in action in 50 games.

It would also compress the total duration of the event, as two games could be played in parallel.

Good points. I have made the changes.

Peter

Dan Honeycutt wrote:In your last post in the other thread you said you favored letting them participate. What changed your mind?

Best
Dan H.

I simply believe that more programmers will participate with them not included.

This is something I am willing to change, but there would have to be a massive show of support by programmers for it.

Quite frankly, I am tired of getting flamed for even suggesting they be allowed to participate. Being tomorrow is the ACCA event, I will get a chance to speak to several programmers and get their thoughts.

Hopefully there will be quite a few who didn't register still attending in support of the ACCA. Charles does a fantastic job with it.

Peter

I have not seen the results from the recent poll you posted, but IIRC last time a similar question was raised, it was close to a 50-50 split.

--Jon

jdart wrote:I have not seen the results from the recent poll you posted, but IIRC last time a similar question was raised, it was close to a 50-50 split.

--Jon

And I have no doubt it will be the same. It is a really divisive issue.

Peter

Peter Skinner wrote:

Dan Honeycutt wrote:In your last post in the other thread you said you favored letting them participate. What changed your mind?

Best
Dan H.

I simply believe that more programmers will participate with them not included.

This is something I am willing to change, but there would have to be a massive show of support by programmers for it.

Quite frankly, I am tired of getting flamed for even suggesting they be allowed to participate. Being tomorrow is the ACCA event, I will get a chance to speak to several programmers and get their thoughts.

Hopefully there will be quite a few who didn't register still attending in support of the ACCA. Charles does a fantastic job with it.

Peter

I have consistently and repeatedly shown a complete lack of interest to participate in your tournaments.
Despite my obvious disinterest, each time you seem to feel an irresistible urge to create "polls", then pretend that a lot of people have responded or that you are getting "flamed" for it, to finally decide to "ban" Houdini.

There's no need for this charade, just continue to organize your tournaments and I will continue to not participate in them.
Please be so kind to stop abusing Houdini to generate some extra attention for your tournament.

Have fun,
Robert