2007 World Computer Rapid Chess Championships: Final Results

[Terry McCracken]

A lot of personal attacks have been edited out or deleted.
Some posts which were therefore no longer relevant have also gone or been edited.
I've tried to keep the substance of the debate intact as far as possible. My apologies if you feel any good points you made are gone.

Regards, Graham.

You have a tough job as moderator and I support your actions. I note however that the context of some of what remains has been lost by deleting the worst posts/parts of post. Inevitable I suppose but irritating.

Yes - this is the downside of viewing in threaded mode as opposed to flat mode.

Regards, Graham.

Use flat mode then....

I'm sure I'll be edited for speaking my mind on moderation

Let's see...

[Graham Banks]

You have a tough job as moderator and I support your actions. I note however that the context of some of what remains has been lost by deleting the worst posts/parts of post. Inevitable I suppose but irritating.

Yes - this is the downside of viewing in threaded mode as opposed to flat mode.

Regards, Graham.

Use flat mode then....

I'm sure I'll be edited for speaking my mind on moderation

Let's see...

I do use flat mode. I was referring to those who don't.

Regards, Graham.

[Rolf]

Unless they are ignored by you as you say in an earlier post whispering is better and something you have often done. So one rule for you and another for the rest:


1. I think I originally had it set to whisper rather than kibits. In the past we have done it this way as we had a couple of cases of a program getting confused by the kibitzes in past events. Whispering lets all observers see the output, it just doesn't show up on the opponent's screen. Since most of us long-time ICC'ers have an account for our programs, and an account for us so we can observe, that works perfectly.

This is what I was trying to message to you. You made a mistake and are now trying to detect mistakes everywhere else, in special on the side of some critics. For certain this must fail to succeed. Bob didnt close any kibitz/whisper but just were forgetting about his script in use. But that no other impact on the game than that you had no output of CRAFTY pondering. All others had it. So there is not the slightest evidence for a cheating attempt. Please, I beg you not to go further so low. Everything else I've already said. And Harvey, you dont stand under any threat if you now continue on the road of honesty. But that requires a couple of thoughts about the relevance of mistakes. To even assume for a minute that an academic like Bob would have tried to get advantages where a certain feature still allowed full control over all CRAFTY details, is a mistake in itself. To then imply that Bob wanted to get his own rules for having less control exerted by the rules, is showing too little respect for someone like Bob. It's very sad to see. Please try to get over it unless you really want to ask for endless torture for your own failure. BTW please, I honestly beg you to drop this nonsense about never ever operating on ICC. That is not your style IMO. Finally please excuse all this weak English from a foreigner. It really made me sad to see you suffering after your mistake and then making all the announcements. But now I'll stop my advices no matter how your choices will look like, because I really want to remain in a positive way in your memory. You have still so much future ahead of now while the time of Bob and me is becoming shorter and shorter. Good luck to you and bye.

[Guetti]

that's the most absurd post I have ever read. Of _course_ he cheated. The operator is not allowed to change _ANYTHING_ after the first move is played. Always been that way in computer chess events.

So how is that not cheating by any definition one can find?

It was wrong, and in my opinion it ought not be allowed to play again unless the operator can learn to read the rules and then follow them explicitly as the rest of us do...

I don't see what the fuzz is all about. I agree that the engines should make their moves themselves and should not be influenced by the operators during the games. But changing the contempt factor during the game, come on guys. Normally this could be done before the first move, but we all forget things sometimes (like switching from whisper to kibitz). If somebody starts his engine with 8 kb hashtable, would he have to play the game with this setting?
Or just pull the plug, "oh, my engine crashed!" and restart with 512M hastables. How are going to control that?

Before banning engines for ever from tournaments just realize that there are new guys with less experience out there. And know what, most of us learn by doing mistakes.

[sje]

The phrase "Fire and forget" is a piece of military jargon that means that a particular munition is designed to take care of itself and damage the target without any intervention from the launching operator. It has been a tradition to take this approach in computer chess events from the very first USA/USSR four game match back in 1966. Anyone who has had training as a scientist knows not to screw with an experiment once it's started; this avoids not just suspicions of fraud but also helps prevent even subconscious bias from perverting the result.

I would take this one step further and prohibit any changes to a program or its operation once an event has started. This is the regime used by Symbolic and I see no reason to change it.

[Guetti]

The phrase "Fire and forget" is a piece of military jargon that means that a particular munition is designed to take care of itself and damage the target without any intervention from the launching operator. It has been a tradition to take this approach in computer chess events from the very first USA/USSR four game match back in 1966. Anyone who has had training as a scientist knows not to screw with an experiment once it's started; this avoids not just suspicions of fraud but also helps prevent even subconscious bias from perverting the result.

I would take this one step further and prohibit any changes to a program or its operation once an event has started. This is the regime used by Symbolic and I see no reason to change it.

The key point in this case is what is the "experiment" in the sense of chess, is it the next move, the whole game or an entire tournament. That is were the views differ.
Removing bugs between games, adjusting contempt factors, changing hardware etc. is ok in my view.
Changes during the games should be not allowed, in my oppinion, as I aready stated. Or only after consulting the TD.
The Hiarcs operator did a mistake, because he could follow the game and change the contempt after seeing the game becomes drawish. That was taking human influence in the game. But I'm sure a lot of worse stuff happenens during such tournaments, and not only online ones.
I think it was a "small" oversight from Harvey. But apparently generosity is not the peculiarity of the chess programmer.

[M ANSARI]

I think this has gone way over the original subject. Everyone posting has a valid point, but sometimes it is better to sit back and see the overall picture. I don't think Harvey realized that changing contempt on the fly was a major violation otherwise he would not have mentioned it openly. I also agree that once an engine starts a game it should be left on its own for better or for worse, otherwise this can open up a can of worms. Rules are always open for interpretation and personally I think if there is a loophole where something cannot be verified imperically then either the software needs to be changed or other measures taken to make sure the necessary requirements are met via additional means. Harvey can easily just say that he made the claim that he changed contempt on the fly but really didn't actually do it just to get this interesting thread going. Unlike other computer tournaments ... an internet tournament with the software that is available today has no way of verifying either way. Maybe whispering or kibitzing will show such an alternation, but I am not sure. A good new thing to implement in software for future tournaments maybe and let's leave it at that.

In the meantime I think the event was really interesting (computer tournaments are always interesting). Excellent result by Hiarcs including a great win against Rybka (Rybka's only non won game). I wouldn't dwell too much on Hiarcs loss, an engine will lose a game here and there ... regardless of the difference of ELO ... it is a statistical reality.

[Terry McCracken]

A lot of personal attacks have been edited out or deleted.
Some posts which were therefore no longer relevant have also gone or been edited.
I've tried to keep the substance of the debate intact as far as possible. My apologies if you feel any good points you made are gone.

Regards, Graham.

I made no personal attacks, but you deleted my posts! That's NOT
moderation, that's CENSORSHIP!

Learn the difference between criticism and a personal remarks!

Don't push it Terry. Your criticism was regarded as a personal attack and deleted.

Regards, Graham.

I'm not pushing anything Graham, I'm stating a fact. I don't care if you can't comprehend that.

It was terse but accurate.

Veiled threats I find far more offensive!

You want to flex your muscle, be my guest. We will find a better and saner site than this to discuss and write about computer chess.

Conversation is over.

[Terry McCracken]

The phrase "Fire and forget" is a piece of military jargon that means that a particular munition is designed to take care of itself and damage the target without any intervention from the launching operator. It has been a tradition to take this approach in computer chess events from the very first USA/USSR four game match back in 1966. Anyone who has had training as a scientist knows not to screw with an experiment once it's started; this avoids not just suspicions of fraud but also helps prevent even subconscious bias from perverting the result.

I would take this one step further and prohibit any changes to a program or its operation once an event has started. This is the regime used by Symbolic and I see no reason to change it.

The key point in this case is what is the "experiment" in the sense of chess, is it the next move, the whole game or an entire tournament. That is were the views differ.
Removing bugs between games, adjusting contempt factors, changing hardware etc. is ok in my view.
Changes during the games should be not allowed, in my oppinion, as I aready stated. Or only after consulting the TD.
The Hiarcs operator did a mistake, because he could follow the game and change the contempt after seeing the game becomes drawish. That was taking human influence in the game. But I'm sure a lot of worse stuff happenens during such tournaments, and not only online ones.
I think it was a "small" oversight from Harvey. But apparently generosity is not the peculiarity of the chess programmer.

So it would appear....

Terry

[Graham Banks]

I made no personal attacks, but you deleted my posts! That's NOT
moderation, that's CENSORSHIP!

Learn the difference between criticism and a personal remarks!

Don't push it Terry. Your criticism was regarded as a personal attack and deleted.

Regards, Graham.

I'm not pushing anything Graham, I'm stating a fact. I don't care if you can't comprehend that.

It was terse but accurate.

Veiled threats I find far more offensive!

You want to flex your muscle, be my guest. We will find a better and saner site than this to discuss and write about computer chess.

Conversation is over.

We'll have to disagree over your definition of a criticism as opposed to a personal attack then.

My 'veiled threat" was a hint to cool it.

As I've said to Steve, if you ever become a moderator, you'll very quickly find out that no matter what course of action you take (or choose not to take), you'll receive criticism from some quarter.

If you find a better site to discuss computer chess, let me know.

Regards, Graham.