2009 WCRCC: Bright/Spark issue

[CRoberson]

Hi Miguel,

One doesn't have to stay in front of the computer. The requirment is that you can get the computer or program back up quickly if there is a problem. Thus, you only need to periodically check it and possibly be there at the beginning of each round.

Actually, I will be gone for a couple of hours on Saturday. I'm not sure how I'll handle this. I think starting the rounds should be fine, as either the opponent can match or the ICC admin can spoof me. I'm a bit concerned about crashes though. ZCT has a tendency to lock up every once in a while. One possibility is to write a script that detects when less than 4 cpus are running, and kick/re-login if so. Not exactly easy to test though, since I don't want to run on ICC and kick myself, possibly getting banned (again).

Also, if it was to re-login, wouldn't it have to send "resume" to the server? Or can an admin handle this?

On relogin, your opponent can resume.

[hgm]

It's sometimes fun to beat up on Noonian or umax, but most of the time it's just boring.

Ahem? This must have been one of the times then that it was "boring":

Code: Select all

[Event "ICS rated blitz match"] 
[Site "80.100.28.169"] 
[Date "2009.04.11"] 
[Round "-"] 
[White "ZCT"] 
[Black "microMax"] 
[Result "0-1"] 
[WhiteElo "1706"] 
[BlackElo "1456"] 
[TimeControl "300+1"] 

1. d4 (0:00) Nf6 (0:00) 2. c4 (0:00) e6 (0:10) 3. Nf3 (0:00) Be7 (0:20) 4. 
Nc3 (0:09) {+0.23/14 9} O-O (0:11) 5. Bg5 (0:11) {+0.86/13 11} Nc6 (0:05) 
6. d5 (0:04) {+0.72/13 4} exd5 (0:06) 7. cxd5 (0:09) {+0.87/14 8} 
Nb4 (0:04) 8. a3 (0:04) {+0.87/13 4} Na6 (0:05) 9. e3 (0:03) {+0.75/13 2.8} 
d6 (0:06) 10. Qc2 (0:08) {+0.66/13 8} Nxd5 (0:08) 11. Nxd5 (0:10) 
{+0.29/13 10} Bxg5 (0:06) 12. Bxa6 (0:02) {+0.21/12 1.8} bxa6 (0:05) 13. 
Nxc7 (0:03) {+0.03/12 2.4} Rb8 (0:05) 14. Rd1 (0:02) {-0.06/12 2.0} 
Bf6 (0:11) 15. b4 (0:08) {-0.31/14 8} a5 (0:08) 16. b5 (0:00) {-0.49/13} 
Bd7 (0:04) 17. a4 (0:07) {-0.32/13 7} Rc8 (0:05) 18. Rc1 (0:02) 
{-0.50/13 2.2} Re8 (0:04) 19. O-O (0:08) {-1.23/13 8} Re7 (0:03) 20. 
Qc4 (0:04) {-1.28/14 3} h5 (0:07) 21. Nd4 (0:10) {-1.64/14 10} Bxd4 (0:14) 
22. Qxd4 (0:12) {-0.77/16 12} Rxc7 (0:04) 23. Qxd6 (0:02) {-0.94/15 2.4} 
Rb7 (0:04) 24. Rc5 (0:10) {-0.36/12 9} g6 (0:04) 25. Qf4 (0:06) 
{-0.53/12 6} Qb6 (0:03) 26. Rfc1 (0:06) {-0.54/12 6} Bf5 (0:03) 27. 
Qh6 (0:06) {-0.30/12 6} Rec7 (0:04) 28. R5c4 (0:07) {-1.58/16 7} 
Rxc4 (0:05) 29. Rxc4 (0:01) {-2.11/16 1.1} a6 (0:04) 30. Rd4 (0:07) 
{-2.14/13 7} axb5 (0:05) 31. axb5 (0:14) {-4.00/15 13} Qc7 (0:06) 32. 
h3 (0:05) {-3.71/13 5} Rxb5 (0:03) 33. Qf4 (0:08) {-4.89/16 8} Qxf4 (0:04) 
34. exf4 (0:05) {-5.52/17 5} Rb4 (0:03) 35. Rd2 (0:05) {-5.17/15 4} 
Rxf4 (0:02) 36. Ra2 (0:05) {-4.82/17 4} a4 (0:03) 37. Ra3 (0:01) 
{-4.88/16 0.9} Kg7 (0:03) 38. Ra1 (0:04) {-5.11/15 4} Rb4 (0:02) 39. 
Kh2 (0:04) {-5.24/16 4} Bd7 (0:02) 40. f3 (0:04) {-5.01/16 4} Rb3 (0:03) 
41. h4 (0:04) {-4.99/16 4} a3 (0:02) 42. Kh1 (0:09) {-6.14/16 9} f5 (0:06) 
43. f4 (0:04) {-6.25/17 4} Be6 (0:06) 44. Kh2 (0:15) {-10.49/20 15} 
Bd5 (0:02) 45. Rc1 (0:08) {-12.20/17 7} a2 (0:03) 46. Rc7+ (0:02) 
{-13.56/18 2.1} Kh6 (0:03) 47. Ra7 (0:04) {-15.41/17 4} Rb1 (0:02) 48. 
Rxa2 (0:00) {-15.21/13} Bxa2 (0:09) 49. Kg3 (0:00) {-16.41/13} Rb2 (0:03) 
50. Kf3 (0:03) {-16.81/12 3} Bc4 (0:06) 51. Ke3 (0:04) {-15.33/12 4} 
Rxg2 (0:03) 52. Kd4 (0:01) {-17.27/13 1.0} Rg4 (0:02) 53. Kxc4 (0:06) 
{-23.16/15 6} Rxh4 (0:02) 54. Kd5 (0:01) {-24.27/14 0.6} Rxf4 (0:02) 55. 
Ke5 (0:02) {-327.48/15 2.0} Rg4 (0:02) 56. Ke6 (0:03) {-25.23/13 2.7} 
f4 (0:03) 57. Kd6 (0:03) {-327.52/15 2.6} f3 (0:04) 58. Kc6 (0:00) 
{-327.54/15} Kg7 (0:02) 59. Kb7 (0:03) {-327.54/9 2.6} f2 (0:03) 60. 
Kb6 (0:00) {-327.56/14} f1=Q (0:02) 61. Kc5 (0:01) {-327.58/24 0.5} 
Qc1+ (0:02) 62. Kb5 (0:03) {-327.60/95 2.6} h4 (0:00) 63. Ka5 (0:00) 
{-327.62/128 0.1} Qb1 (0:00) 64. Ka6 (0:00) Ra4# (0:00) 
{ZCT checkmated} 0-1

(Sorry, but you really ask for this! )

But seriously: Even if it would be boring to you (or ZCT), there exist plenty opponent for whom Noonian and micro-Max are a challenge, and they have just as much right to participate and have a pleasant tournament as anybody else. This is really the same as saying that ZCT should not participate because it is too boring for Rybka to crush it.

[Zach Wegner]

(Sorry, but you really ask for this! )

But seriously: Even if it would be boring to you (or ZCT), there exist plenty opponent for whom Noonian and micro-Max are a challenge, and they have just as much right to participate and have a pleasant tournament as anybody else. This is really the same as saying that ZCT should not participate because it is too boring for Rybka to crush it.

hehehe, I cannot deny that ZCT is really crappy, and gets an (all too) occasional loss against umax. I think it's lost against Noonian at one point too. My point isn't that umax/Noonian are weak, it's just that they are more like "side projects". I don't think it would be so bad to only allow one entry per person. Umax might be considered a serious entry if it was your only entry, but Noonian is old, undeveloped, and seems to be only entered as just another weak opponent. I doubt Charles pays much attention to its games (maybe you pay a bit more attention to umax though). And I can't really argue that ZCT is very serious anymore, but I'm only entering one engine, even though I could enter more.

Also, just for fun (and because you really ask for it ):

Code: Select all

[Event "ICS unrated standard match"]
[Site "chessclub.com"]
[Date "2008.11.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "zct"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2270"]
[BlackElo "2813"]
[TimeControl "2700+10"]

1. Nf3
{Game aborted when Rybka disconnected} *

[Event "ICS unrated standard match"]
[Site "chessclub.com"]
[Date "2008.11.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "zct"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2270"]
[BlackElo "2813"]
[TimeControl "2700+10"]

1. e4
{Game aborted when Rybka disconnected} *

[Event "ICS unrated standard match"]
[Site "chessclub.com"]
[Date "2008.11.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "zct"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2270"]
[BlackElo "2813"]
[TimeControl "2700+10"]

1. e4
{Game aborted when Rybka disconnected} *

[Event "ICS unrated standard match"]
[Site "chessclub.com"]
[Date "2008.11.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "zct"]
[Black "Rybka"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2270"]
[BlackElo "2813"]
[TimeControl "2700+10"]

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 c6 4. e4 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Qxd4 7. Bxb4
Qxe4+ 8. Be2 Qxg2 9. Bf3 Qg6 10. Ne2 a5 11. Bc3 Nf6 12. Qd6 Nbd7 13. O-O-O
Qg5+ 14. Nf4 e5 15. Bxe5 Ne4 16. Rhe1 Nxd6 17. Bf6+ Ne5 18. Bxg5 O-O 19.
Rxe5 f6 20. Bxf6 Rxf6 21. Rd4 Kf8 22. Re3 c5 23. Ne6+ Rxe6 24. Rxe6 Bxe6
25. Rxd6 Ke7 26. Rb6 Rf8 27. Rxb7+ Kd6 28. Be4 Rxf2 29. Rxg7 h5 30. Rg6 Ke5
31. Bd5 Bf5 32. Rg2 Rf1+ 33. Kd2 Kd4 34. h4 a4 35. a3 Rb1 36. Rg5 Rxb2+ 37.
Ke1 Bd3 38. Bc6 Re2+ 39. Kd1 Rh2 40. Bxa4 Rxh4 41. Bc6 Rh2 42. Rd5+ Kxc4
43. Rg5 h4 44. Ke1 Re2+ 45. Kd1 h3 46. a4 h2 47. Rh5 Rf2 48. Ke1 Rb2 49.
Ba8 Re2+ 50. Kd1 Kb4 51. Rh3 c4 52. Bb7 Kc3 53. Bh1 Rf2 54. Rf3 Rxf3 55.
Bxf3 Kd4 56. Kd2 Be4 57. Bxe4 Kxe4 58. Kc3 Kd5 59. Kd2 Kd4 60. Kc2 h1=Q 61.
Kb2 c3+ 62. Ka3 Kc4 63. Ka2 Qh2+ 64. Ka3 Qb2#
{zct checkmated} 0-1

ZCT at first had a win by forfeit according to the rules, but I allowed Rybka to play on, and they were able to keep all the time they had lost (30 mins IIRC). And even then, the game was drawn up until the endgame, move 40 or so.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

From my private rating list:

ZCT 0.3.2500 MP x64 4CPU 1908_113.5/240
_micro-Max 4.8 q8 1848_65/136

q8=using my private q8.abk....
Dr.D

P.S.BTW,_micro-Max didn't play yet on my Q9650 machine overclocked to 4.0 GHz,so will'll see later if it cat catch up with ZCT

[Zach Wegner]

ZCT 2500 is a piece of shit. It's not worth the time to test it, really.

[hgm]

Actually I consider micro-Max my main engine project. I spent far more time on developing micro-Max than I did on developing Joker (perhaps 4x). If you don't count effort that went into Joker derivatives for Capablanca Chess or Knightmate (Joker80 and JokerKM).

In events where I have to choose which engine to play (e.g. WBEC), micro-Max plays. I get more satisfaction from a single win of micro-Max than from 5 of Joker.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Joker 1.1.14 q8 2272_99/196

And here's a game played against ZCT commented after that by Deep Fritz 11
A stupid endgame blunder cost me the win....

[Event "Zzzz_0_1"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.06.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ZCT 0.3.2500 MP x64"]
[Black "Dr.Deeb"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D23"]
[Annotator "Deep Fritz 11 (20m)"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[Source "Chess Informant"]

{D23: Queen's Gambit Accepted: 3 Nf3 Nf6 sidelines} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3
Nf6 4. Qa4+ c6 5. Qxc4 Bf5 6. g3 e6 7. Bg2 Nbd7 8. Nc3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1
Ne4 11. e3 Bg6 $146 (11... Nxc3 12. bxc3 Be4 13. Nd2 (13. Qb3 Qc7 14. Nd2 Bxg2
15. Kxg2 b6 16. c4 Rfd8 17. e4 c5 18. d5 Bf6 19. Rb1 Bd4 20. Nf3 e5 21. Nh4 g6
22. Qf3 Qd6 23. Qg4 Kh8 24. Bg5 Rg8 25. Rb3 h5 26. Qf3 f6 27. Bh6 Qe7 {
Lahner,J (2262)-Trombik,K (2227)/Moravia 2003/EXT 2006/0-1 (59)}) 13... Bxg2
14. Kxg2 c5 15. Ne4 Rc8 16. Qb3 Qc7 17. Ba3 Qc6 18. f3 Qa6 19. Bb2 Rc6 20. Nd2
Nb6 21. Rab1 Qd3 22. Ne4 Nd5 23. Nf2 Nxe3+ 24. Kg1 Qf5 25. Bc1 Rb6 26. Qxb6 {
Meleshko,T (2126)-Nebolsina,V (2274)/Sochi 2006/CBM 111 ext/0-1 (34)}) (11...
Qb6 12. Qe2 Rad8 13. Nd2 Nxd2 14. Qxd2 Bg6 15. Qe2 Nf6 16. b3 Nd5 17. Na4 Qa5
18. Bd2 Qc7 19. e4 Nb6 20. Nxb6 Qxb6 21. d5 Bc5 22. dxc6 Qxc6 23. Be3 Bxe3 {
1/2-1/2 Andersson,U (2640)-Huebner,R (2620)/Tilburg 1983/MCD}) (11... Nb6 12.
Qe2 Nd5 13. Nxe4 Bxe4 14. a3 a5 15. Ne5 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 c5 17. e4 Nf6 18. dxc5
Bxc5 19. Bg5 Be7 20. Red1 Qc7 21. Bxf6 Bxf6 22. Nd7 Rfd8 23. Rac1 Rxd7 24. Rxc7
Rxc7 25. e5 Be7 26. Qb5 {
Przezdziecka,M (1980)-Rant,I (1900)/Krynica 2003/EXT 2007/1-0 (36)}) 12. Qb3
Qb6 13. Nh4 Nxc3 14. bxc3 (14. Qxc3 $4 Bb4 15. Nxg6 hxg6 $19) (14. Nxg6 $6 Ne2+
15. Rxe2 hxg6 $14) 14... Bxh4 15. Qxb6 (15. gxh4 $5 {must be considered} Rfe8
16. e4 $14) 15... axb6 $11 16. gxh4 b5 17. e4 f5 18. e5 {White gains space} Nb6
19. a3 Ra7 20. Ra2 (20. Bf3 f4 $11) 20... Rfa8 21. Re3 (21. Bf3 $5 $11) 21...
Nc4 $17 {Black threatens to win material: Nc4xe3} 22. Rh3 (22. Re1 Nxa3 23. Bf1
Nb1 24. Rxa7 Rxa7 $17) 22... Bh5 23. Rg3 Nxa3 24. Bh6 g6 25. Re3 (25. Bf1 $5
$17) 25... Nc4 $19 26. Rxa7 Rxa7 27. Re1 Ra3 28. Rc1 Ra2 29. h3 Na3 30. Bg5 Kf7
31. f3 (31. Bf1 $142 $17) 31... Rc2 $4 {
with this move Black loses his initiative} (31... Nc4 $142 $19 {
and Black is on the road to success}) 32. Rxc2 $11 Nxc2 {
A minor pieces endgame occured} 33. Bd2 Na3 34. Kf2 Nc4 {
Black threatens to win material: Nc4xd2} 35. Bf4 Nb6 36. Bd2 Nc4 37. Bf4 Nb6
38. Bd2 {Twofold repetition} Nd5 39. Bf1 Nb6 40. Bg2 1/2-1/2

Dr.Deeb in the mix

[bob]

The rules are also clear that the organizer's decision is final. ...

You left out the qualification "in case of a dispute". I don't think there can be any dispute that the rules allow this?

I don't think it is very good for the credibility of a tournament when the TD violates _any_ rule. That Bob thinks the rules are bad is as relevant as a muderer defending himself in court with the argument that he thinks the law should be changed to allow killing.

I have participated in ACM and ICCA/ICGA events since 1976. Rules have _always_ been consistent. One program per author or team of authors. Never been an exception. No one has ever asked for one. The book has been less clear.

So whether you think my opinion matters or not is as irrelevant as anything can be. If it is the purpose of the ACCA to create an event where the goal is to produce as many different programs as possible, I'm not interested. And I'll bet that 95% of the rest of the _authors_ are also not interested. I can enter a half-dozen different programs, all running on 8-core boxes, all _significantly_ different from each other. What is the point?

Put your best foot forward and shut up. There is a ton of history behind this concept. And the idea of allowing two programs from the same author, is a bad one. Always has been a bad one.

Sorry if you don't agree. That really is irrelevant.

[michiguel]

This is really strange. The rules published in advance say that you can have multiple entries (making this a tournament for engines, rather than authors). It said nothing about a minimal Elo difference, or a maximum Elo for the second program. Using that now as an argument is the same as when we would refuse Rybka to enter as an after-thought because it is too strong... That would also be a good move to enhance the winning probability of other participants, which seems the only reason that drives this decision.

The key should be how different the programs are. Who wrote them should not play any role whatsoever, because of the announced rules. That two programs cannot participate if they are too similar is obvious, and also true if they are by different authors. If I would enter with something that is 90% identical to Fruit, would be refused (and accused of cloning on top of that). That is how it should be.

But an engine that would have been allowed as a participant when it was written by someone else, because it was not sufficiently similar to any open-source program to be considered a clone, should also be allowed to enter if it was written by the same author. The judgement must be purely made on the similarity. Is Spark a clone of Bright or not?

The rules are also clear that the organizer's decision is final. There is no way to come to a perfect decision about this and in borderline cases it may require a judgment call. I do not believe it really deserves a huge deal. If Charles has any doubt in this case and likes to err on the safe side of making sure that the programs are more different, then so be it.

Congratulations Charles, all this is a signal of your success. I means people are starting to show interest in the ACCA tournaments.

"Ladran Sancho, señal que cabalgamos" Don Quijote de la Mancha.

(Sancho, they are barking; it mean we are riding")

Miguel
PS: I wish I can participate but I cannot guarantee to be in front of the computer all the time

Hi Miguel,

One doesn't have to stay in front of the computer. The requirment is that you can get the computer or program back up quickly if there is a problem. Thus, you only need to periodically check it and possibly be there at the beginning of each round.

That is what I meant. I will be in and out a couple of times for ~2 hrs and I may miss a critical thing.

Miguel

[hgm]

Sorry if you don't agree. That really is irrelevant.

Apparently you don't grasp the concept of rules.

Let me try to explain them to you, then:

When you make rules, you play by them. It is the TD's task to maintain the rules. If people transgress the rules, they will face sanctions. That they think the rules are bad, will not be considered an excuse or justification for violating them. That would only have been relevant during the rue-making process, if they would have participated in that. Not for the enforcement of the rules.

That'how it works. In every civilized society...