WCCC Schedule + Book Rules + programmers representative

[bob]

I like the book rule because I have seen games won before leaving the book. That takes a lot of preparation. Should multiple programmers have to face the book by a single commercial author? Most (except for those wanting to share a commercial book) would say no, and have in the past said no.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for replying. I am afraid I don't understand what you mean.

What is the rule you like? The current ICGA rule or the rule that each program must use an original book?

Also, "multiple programmers have to face the book by a single commercial author": isn't it the case whatever the rule? Did you mean "a programmer has to face the same book multiple times"?

Rémi

The last time I looked, the rule said that a book author was a member of a team, and that the same person can not be on two different teams. That would imply that a program can use any book, but nobody else can use the same book. For example, a Kure book, or a Noomen book etc... I agree with that. The issue came up with respect to commercial programs at a WCCC where two different programs used the same opening book by the same commercial author. Bruce Moreland raised the issue, I agreed with him. It is challenging to play against a good commercially-prepared book, particularly if you are an amateur. It is _really_ challenging if you have to play against that same book two or more times... and that I don't like.

[Harvey Williamson]

The last time I looked, the rule said that a book author was a member of a team, and that the same person can not be on two different teams.

Unfortunately this rule seems not to be in force anymore as 1 person in Japan booked for 2 programs. I asked Jaap about this and his reply was something like, ' show me where it says that in the rules.'

[marcelk]

It is actually extremely dubious that people are allowed to use tablebase formats they did not design themselves, and probing code they did not write themselves. That you would allow this in a 'basement tournament' werea lot of engines run on a single computer, rather than having to install umptydifferent tablebase sets is obvious, but in an OTB tourney where each engine plays on its own computer, there is no justification.

It is OK if there is a commonly agreed API for tablebase services, makingit easy to make any engine use any tablebase format, but they would really have to use their own DLL to implement this API with their own tablebase format, if we want the WCCC to be taken seriously.

I hope nobody takes something like a WCCC seriously.

The tablebase thing is something the players have to decide upon. Personally I'm undecided: on the one hand there is some innovation in the schemes. On the other hand everyone implementing them is converging quickly to the same optimum for practical purposes, so why bother duplicating the effort. The probing code almost falls into the category of file system or data base engines. Nobody is expected to implement their own Linux kernel or SQL server (or optimizing C compiler for that matter).

[Suj]

what is the time control for this event?

[stegemma]

I think that having two very similar tourneys is too complex, for amateurs like me. A shorter tourney with just one of the WCCC or WCSC should be enough (and already just enough expensive).

If IBM or MS or Apple or other bigs want to compete in hardware tourney maybe they can also sponsor the event and let amateurs play and have hotel for free..... but because this is just a fantasy, a software tourney (with 8 core limits, for sample) is more than enough.

that's my opinion... and i fully agree with me

[Rémi Coulom]

I am glad to report that Jaap read this thread and is very receptive to the points that were made. Here is his reply. Please share your thoughts.

Rémi

2. i have seen the book arguments
and will propose that the book author belongs to the team ( even
if it is a"commercially available book")
and that no team member may belong to two teams
does this end the discussion and solve the problems? please give
me your opinion.
with respect to harvey's remark ( it was not a direct quote, but
the essence was true) i would like to say that in the time
he questioned me on that i knew what was the history of the
argument and answer, namely the double authorship by murray campbell
in edmonton, alberta 1989 for hitech and deep thought.

3.i have seen the discussions on the length of the tournaments
and the concurrence of the wccc and the wcsc.
my proposal is we start with the wccc and thereafter we have a wcsc
for all people who would like to compete in that tournament

4. the length of the tournament
in the very past it was five rounds according to the swiss system
that was considered quite unfair
therefore we went to a higher number of rounds
my proposal is to set it depending on the number of participants
for instance, for twelve participants we can play eleven rounds,
i.e., a round robin
this holds also for fewer participants
for 14 participants we can go to nine rounds according to the swiss system
i see that you may think why not already with 12 do this
it is a matter of feeling all play all is the most fair competition

if we have 20 participants we can go to eleven rounds and stay at that number

5. the length of a game
this is a tricky discussion, 90 minutes for 60 moves looks quite
fast to me for some programs
120 minutes for the whole game is another option
then we can play 2,3,2,2,2 a tournament in five days or 2.3.2.3.1
a day of three games is then 9.00 to 13.00 then 14.00 to
18.00 and 19.00 to 23.00 hours
or 9 to 13 13.30 to 17.30 18 to 22
i believe that 2,3,3,3 is too much

for nine rounds the scheme could be 2,3,3,1 ( 2,3,2,2)

6. wccc for five days and wcsc for four days is that an option
or depending on the participants wccc four days and wscs four days

7.if the time control changes to 3.5 hours per game ( 1.5 + 1.5 + 0.5)
then we can play three games a day
please let me have your opinion on it
so that we can have a brief discussion on the internet with the three of us
next tuesday i will have a meeting with the holders ( owners) of the
playing hall
then i would like to present our plans

[bob]

I am glad to report that Jaap read this thread and is very receptive to the points that were made. Here is his reply. Please share your thoughts.

Rémi

2. i have seen the book arguments
and will propose that the book author belongs to the team ( even
if it is a"commercially available book")
and that no team member may belong to two teams
does this end the discussion and solve the problems? please give
me your opinion.
with respect to harvey's remark ( it was not a direct quote, but
the essence was true) i would like to say that in the time
he questioned me on that i knew what was the history of the
argument and answer, namely the double authorship by murray campbell
in edmonton, alberta 1989 for hitech and deep thought.

3.i have seen the discussions on the length of the tournaments
and the concurrence of the wccc and the wcsc.
my proposal is we start with the wccc and thereafter we have a wcsc
for all people who would like to compete in that tournament

4. the length of the tournament
in the very past it was five rounds according to the swiss system
that was considered quite unfair
therefore we went to a higher number of rounds
my proposal is to set it depending on the number of participants
for instance, for twelve participants we can play eleven rounds,
i.e., a round robin
this holds also for fewer participants
for 14 participants we can go to nine rounds according to the swiss system
i see that you may think why not already with 12 do this
it is a matter of feeling all play all is the most fair competition

if we have 20 participants we can go to eleven rounds and stay at that number

5. the length of a game
this is a tricky discussion, 90 minutes for 60 moves looks quite
fast to me for some programs
120 minutes for the whole game is another option
then we can play 2,3,2,2,2 a tournament in five days or 2.3.2.3.1
a day of three games is then 9.00 to 13.00 then 14.00 to
18.00 and 19.00 to 23.00 hours
or 9 to 13 13.30 to 17.30 18 to 22
i believe that 2,3,3,3 is too much

for nine rounds the scheme could be 2,3,3,1 ( 2,3,2,2)

6. wccc for five days and wcsc for four days is that an option
or depending on the participants wccc four days and wscs four days

7.if the time control changes to 3.5 hours per game ( 1.5 + 1.5 + 0.5)
then we can play three games a day
please let me have your opinion on it
so that we can have a brief discussion on the internet with the three of us
next tuesday i will have a meeting with the holders ( owners) of the
playing hall
then i would like to present our plans

The book author rule didn't really come from Murray in the DT/Hitech issue. It came from Bruce Moreland who raised the (valid) issue "Do I really have to face a book written by Alex Kure twice in the same tournament? Which might have been maybe Fritz and Chess Tiger but I am not sure,

I personally like faster games. Not blitz obviously, but our old 40 moves in 2 hours then 10 moves in 1/2 hour were way slow, But a faster pace is more interesting for everyone, just so it doesn't become difficult on the operators.

Speaking of operators, why can't that be eliminated. Everyone has entered a CCT event and used an automatic interface. Why can't the ICGA events do the same and get the human out of the equation?

For me, and for others I have talked with, the number of rounds is less important than the number of days. Shorter is better. 4 days would, IMHO, be an optimal event. We've done online tournaments with 3-4-5-6 rounds in a day, depending on the time controls. If we get away from this manual move entry nonsense, one can start a game, and then eat a sandwich or something while the game is in progress. If you have to manually operate, it is dangerous to leave the table for any length of time due to time lost on the clock if you don't make a move...

Time for the thing to become automated completely.

[Gerd Isenberg]

The book author rule didn't really come from Murray in the DT/Hitech issue.

Interesting, so in this last round game, where the winner would be world champion, Murray Campbell had the choice? And had already left Hitech team and was Deep Thought team member? Even if this particular opening looks innocent.

Code: Select all

[Event "6th World Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Edmonton, Canada"]
[Date "1989.05.31"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Hitech"]
[Black "Deep Thought"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Nc6 5. Nbd2 Be7 6. h3 O-O 7. Be2 Nh5 8. Bh2 g6 9. O-O f5 10. Be5 Nxe5 11. Nxe5 Nf6 12. c4 c5 13. Ndf3 Bd6 14. a3 Qc7 15. Rc1 a5 16. Qb3 b6 17. Qa4 Bb7 18. Rc2 Kh8 19. cxd5 Bxd5 20. Rd1 Rad8 21. Bb5 Ne4 22. Nd7 Rg8 23. Nfe5 Rg7 24. Rd3 Be7 25. Rd1 h5 26. Rdc1 Bg5 27. Re1 Bh4 28. Rf1 Be7 29. Rfc1 g5 30. f3 Nf6 31. Kf1 g4 32. hxg4 hxg4 33. f4 Be4 34. Rd2 Nd5 35. Re2 Rh7 36. Ree1 Nxe3+ 37. Kg1 Nd5 38. Ng6+ Kg7 39. Nxe7 Qxf4 40. Nxf5+ exf5 41. Rxe4 Qxc1+ 42. Bf1 fxe4 43. Qb3 Rh1+ 44. Kxh1 Qxf1+ 45. Kh2 Rh8+ 46. Qh3 g3+ 47. Kxg3 Qf4# 0-1 

It came from Bruce Moreland who raised the (valid) issue "Do I really have to face a book written by Alex Kure twice in the same tournament? Which might have been maybe Fritz and Chess Tiger but I am not sure,

WCCC 1999 Paderborn:
Fritz and Nimzo with Kure books, Tiger and Rebel with Noomen books, P.ConNerS and Zugzwang with Matthias books, and likely Cilkchess and Mini with Kaufman books and even Don Dailey as engine author.

[stegemma]

I think that an automated tourney could means the dead of the WCCC. To have people facing through a wooden chessboard is the reason for this kind of tourney. I know, to operate a machine while it is the machine that play can be very annoying and sometimes frustrating [when you finally get the last place in the tourney, just to provide a sample that i really know ]. But, the phisical stress in wich everyone is involved it's not a part of the game? When i play chess (human chess, not software) i always say that "even the clock is a piece". The clock obviously is not a piece... but it is so important to handle time in the best way that i say that. The same could be human stress in software competitions: even the human is... a part of the playing software!

[Rémi Coulom]

I think that an automated tourney could means the dead of the WCCC. To have people facing through a wooden chessboard is the reason for this kind of tourney. I know, to operate a machine while it is the machine that play can be very annoying and sometimes frustrating [when you finally get the last place in the tourney, just to provide a sample that i really know ]. But, the phisical stress in wich everyone is involved it's not a part of the game? When i play chess (human chess, not software) i always say that "even the clock is a piece". The clock obviously is not a piece... but it is so important to handle time in the best way that i say that. The same could be human stress in software competitions: even the human is... a part of the playing software!

I agree that manual operation is not bad. I participated in some automated Go tournaments, and the contact with the opponent does not have the same quality. Also, the blitz tournament would be immensely more boring and less spectacular. I really love the manually-operated blitz tournament

Rémi