Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:23 am
- Location: http://www.arasanchess.org
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
Unfortunately I've just booked a trip - I'm out of town on the 23rd, returning the 24th.
--Jon
--Jon
-
- Posts: 4833
- Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Philippines
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
Witnessing an engine play for the whole game is one of the best way to catch obvious bugs and suspect engine behaviour. I was only fixing the obvious. I run the fixed version in another computer for a verification of the fix, while the buggy engine was still playing. I recheck code related to suspect engine behaviour a day after.bob wrote:Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
I have been playing in computer chess events since 1976. I can guarantee you that more games have been lost by bugs introduced between rounds than for any other single reason. I've not fallen into this trap in 20 years. I do my development somewhat like the Linux (or other) projects. A month or so before a tournament, we freeze new changes. At the 2 week mark, we freeze any tuning or adjustments we are working on. From that point to the tournament, the only changes that get in are those that fix actual bugs that pose a significant risk. As a result, you don't see Crafty crashing, or doing other silly things, due to last-minute changes. Being bug free is just as important as being good...Ferdy wrote:Witnessing an engine play for the whole game is one of the best way to catch obvious bugs and suspect engine behaviour. I was only fixing the obvious. I run the fixed version in another computer for a verification of the fix, while the buggy engine was still playing. I recheck code related to suspect engine behaviour a day after.bob wrote:Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
-
- Posts: 9773
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
- Location: Amman,Jordan
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
A smart strategy Bob,I like itbob wrote:I have been playing in computer chess events since 1976. I can guarantee you that more games have been lost by bugs introduced between rounds than for any other single reason. I've not fallen into this trap in 20 years. I do my development somewhat like the Linux (or other) projects. A month or so before a tournament, we freeze new changes. At the 2 week mark, we freeze any tuning or adjustments we are working on. From that point to the tournament, the only changes that get in are those that fix actual bugs that pose a significant risk. As a result, you don't see Crafty crashing, or doing other silly things, due to last-minute changes. Being bug free is just as important as being good...Ferdy wrote:Witnessing an engine play for the whole game is one of the best way to catch obvious bugs and suspect engine behaviour. I was only fixing the obvious. I run the fixed version in another computer for a verification of the fix, while the buggy engine was still playing. I recheck code related to suspect engine behaviour a day after.bob wrote:Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
-
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:06 pm
- Location: San Francisco, USA
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
I am planning to participate this year (after having a blast last year) and I see no problem with either providing the binary or source of my engine. For what is worth...
Vlad.
Vlad.
-
- Posts: 6401
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
I think it is even more important to be luckybob wrote:I have been playing in computer chess events since 1976. I can guarantee you that more games have been lost by bugs introduced between rounds than for any other single reason. I've not fallen into this trap in 20 years. I do my development somewhat like the Linux (or other) projects. A month or so before a tournament, we freeze new changes. At the 2 week mark, we freeze any tuning or adjustments we are working on. From that point to the tournament, the only changes that get in are those that fix actual bugs that pose a significant risk. As a result, you don't see Crafty crashing, or doing other silly things, due to last-minute changes. Being bug free is just as important as being good...Ferdy wrote:Witnessing an engine play for the whole game is one of the best way to catch obvious bugs and suspect engine behaviour. I was only fixing the obvious. I run the fixed version in another computer for a verification of the fix, while the buggy engine was still playing. I recheck code related to suspect engine behaviour a day after.bob wrote:Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
Miguel
-
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
Does Charles have a comparable hardware that the Rybka or Sjeng cluster use? Unless he has, then no real validation will happen.bob wrote:We've had this discussion within the ICGA investigation. The binary has to be validated during the event by running it on a few positions and comparing the output to the kibitzed scores during the game. Otherwise, as you point out, it would be worthless and could be a binary of anything.hgm wrote:How could it be guaranteed that what the participants submit is actually the binary they use?
Would it be an idea to let the organizers pack the submitted binaries into a 'wrapper' that would kibitz some ID tag derived from each move (through an algorithm only know to the organizers)? And then send the thus modified binary back to the user, so he could use it during the tournament?
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
Most will hate to hear this, but I agree completely. Luck is a key piece of winning any short tournament. Where it ranks compared to bug-free is fruit for argument, but it is certainly way up there...michiguel wrote:I think it is even more important to be luckybob wrote:I have been playing in computer chess events since 1976. I can guarantee you that more games have been lost by bugs introduced between rounds than for any other single reason. I've not fallen into this trap in 20 years. I do my development somewhat like the Linux (or other) projects. A month or so before a tournament, we freeze new changes. At the 2 week mark, we freeze any tuning or adjustments we are working on. From that point to the tournament, the only changes that get in are those that fix actual bugs that pose a significant risk. As a result, you don't see Crafty crashing, or doing other silly things, due to last-minute changes. Being bug free is just as important as being good...Ferdy wrote:Witnessing an engine play for the whole game is one of the best way to catch obvious bugs and suspect engine behaviour. I was only fixing the obvious. I run the fixed version in another computer for a verification of the fix, while the buggy engine was still playing. I recheck code related to suspect engine behaviour a day after.bob wrote:Here's another suggestion. Do _not_ change your program between rounds. You introduce more bugs than you fix. From someone that has been doing this a _long_ time...Ferdy wrote:CRoberson wrote:The 2011 Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championships is tentatively scheduled for the weekend of July 23/24 2011. It is tentative only to give others a chance to tell me of a serious timing conflict. After looking around the usual tournaments, I couldn't find a conflict.
The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
I will have the web pages up this week. You can respond here or PM me if you have any questions, comments or requests.I changed binary almost every after game, to adjust time control codes and adjust evaluation values. In this case I have to send everytime I change binary.The time control and rules are mostly as they have been. The only change may be that all participants provide a binary of the version entering. This is for tracking purposes and ease of catching clones. I haven't completely decided on that rule yet. It is open for discussion.
Just a suggestion, organizer to request source codes of engines (not necessarily all participants). Commecial engines are optional, good if they submit source codes (understandable product protection). Organizer to identify and inform paticipants of the person who knows the submitted source codes.
One person is probably enough as a source code reviewer (the only person who knows the source code). It is up to the reviwer wether engine will ultimately enter the tournament. It is also helpful if reviewer informs participants of what is allowed and not allowed although it is really up to him to decide (participants should just trust this person).
Miguel
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Fifth Annual ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championshi
You don't need the identical hardware, just the software. One can always adjust the time limit to account for faster hardware... The SMP non-determinism is ever-present, but it doesn't change every move and every score, so it can be dealt with. This has happened in the past, on more than one occasion, in fact...CThinker wrote:Does Charles have a comparable hardware that the Rybka or Sjeng cluster use? Unless he has, then no real validation will happen.bob wrote:We've had this discussion within the ICGA investigation. The binary has to be validated during the event by running it on a few positions and comparing the output to the kibitzed scores during the game. Otherwise, as you point out, it would be worthless and could be a binary of anything.hgm wrote:How could it be guaranteed that what the participants submit is actually the binary they use?
Would it be an idea to let the organizers pack the submitted binaries into a 'wrapper' that would kibitz some ID tag derived from each move (through an algorithm only know to the organizers)? And then send the thus modified binary back to the user, so he could use it during the tournament?
From where I sit, I doubt Rybka will enter. After all the evidence presented about fruit/crafty/rybka, I doubt it would be accepted. We will see...
IMHO GCP's always welcome. We can deal with his hardware issues...