CCT 15 - 72 hours left to register

[Albert Silver]

Very well. Just note that we are not talking about ICC. CCT is scheduled to take place on a server where guests are allowed, and where guests can chat. And where registered accounts are free. No reason to drag in ICC.

I brought it in as it was not only considered viable, but was used, despite having far more restricted access.

[mhull]

There is a reason why elite chess tournaments are not held behind closed doors in the presidential suite of a 5-star hotel, even if there is no question it would be far more comfortable and less distracting than on stage in a large auditorium.

Is the option of reaching out to a larger audience important? It all depends on who is asking it seems. Still, it is clear you are feeling threatened here with the needless disparaging comments on stone age and whatnot, so let's leave it at that. Like I said, I think Winboard is an excellent program though the only use I personally make of it is for variant-playing engines.

I don't know how numerous, but there are linux users (Mac too?) who would be shut out of Playchess. But who would be shut out with the current HGM-FICS/Winboard/xboard setup? I can't think of anyone.

[hgm]

I brought it in as it was not only considered viable, but was used, despite having far more restricted access.

But this is exactly the reason why we moved away from it. It was unacceptable. Despite the fact that there probably would be a hugely larger audience.

CCT is mainly an author event, so audience does not weigh that heavily. The overwhelming bulk of potential audience would consider CCT an third-rate event anyway, as the 100 strongest engines (all tuned Houdini's, of course) do not participate. So I think it would be a strategic mistake to go for a large audience. If that was important we should just have held a match between Houdini and the Rybka cluster...

[Albert Silver]

I brought it in as it was not only considered viable, but was used, despite having far more restricted access.

But this is exactly the reason why we moved away from it. It was unacceptable. Despite the fact that there probably would be a hugely larger audience.

CCT is mainly an author event, so audience does not weigh that heavily. The overwhelming bulk of potential audience would consider CCT an third-rate event anyway, as the 100 strongest engines (all tuned Houdini's, of course) do not participate. So I think it would be a strategic mistake to go for a large audience. If that was important we should just have held a match between Houdini and the Rybka cluster...

I have to disagree regarding audience. I do think it needs to be better marketed though if you wish to appeal to the non-geek. Trying to make it sound like a big super event is not the way, but there are definitely strategies I can think of to generate interest.

[Peter Skinner]

I have to disagree regarding audience. I do think it needs to be better marketed though if you wish to appeal to the non-geek. Trying to make it sound like a big super event is not the way, but there are definitely strategies I can think of to generate interest.

When have I not accepted suggestions to improve the event? Please, by all means lay them out on the table.

As for it not being a "big event":

2010 CCT - 28 Participants
2011 WCCC - 9 participants
2011 Leiden - 8 Participants
2011 CCT - 20 Participants
2012 Leiden ICT - 8 Participants
2012 CCT - 18 Participants
2012 ACCA - 11 Participants
2012 ACCA Pan-America - 6 Participants

2013 CCT - 24 Participants

Do you see a pattern here? The CCT tournament is by far the most participated event _every_ calendar year. Also what other tournament posts _instant_ results on this forum and it's website, plus has the games available for download after each round with in seconds of it completing?

Peter

[Albert Silver]

I have to disagree regarding audience. I do think it needs to be better marketed though if you wish to appeal to the non-geek. Trying to make it sound like a big super event is not the way, but there are definitely strategies I can think of to generate interest.

When have I not accepted suggestions to improve the event? Please, by all means lay them out on the table.

As for it not being a "big event":

2010 CCT - 28 Participants
2011 WCCC - 9 participants
2011 Leiden - 8 Participants
2011 CCT - 20 Participants
2012 Leiden ICT - 8 Participants
2012 CCT - 18 Participants
2012 ACCA - 11 Participants
2012 ACCA Pan-America - 6 Participants

2013 CCT - 24 Participants

Do you see a pattern here? The CCT tournament is by far the most participated event _every_ calendar year. Also what other tournament posts _instant_ results on this forum and it's website, plus has the games available for download after each round with in seconds of it completing?

Peter

I did not mean to besmirch it, if that is how it came off. Besides, you know I support CCT. The option to post news on it, is not in my hands, though I can lobby for it. For that to happen, it would need to be transmitted on Playchess, but even so I cannot make promises out of my control. If there is an interest in this happening, tell me and I can promise to make a pitch.

In any case, I don't think the idea is to pitch it as the event where cyber chess gods play. Instead, I think that the opposite should be done: pitch it as the wide variety of engines, weak and strong, where accessible opponents can be found and played against.

I think that outside of the geeks in this forum and others of its kind, the average user has not the faintest idea that chess engines number the hundreds, not units. That the programmers who build them do so for the sport and fascination, and each is unique, with varied weaknesses and strength just as your random human encounter. Show them how to make use of those engines in an easy way (think of the easiest instructions you can, the kind for your mother, and consider them twice too complicated), and link them to the participants. Etc. Humanize it. A picture of the programmer, a game, however absurd (actually a selling point), etc.

I think the whole interest in these things has been on the decline ever since the engines became untouchable, and while everyone admires Houdini, Rybka and Fritz, they would not dream of playing them.

[Peter Skinner]

I have to disagree regarding audience. I do think it needs to be better marketed though if you wish to appeal to the non-geek. Trying to make it sound like a big super event is not the way, but there are definitely strategies I can think of to generate interest.

When have I not accepted suggestions to improve the event? Please, by all means lay them out on the table.

As for it not being a "big event":

2010 CCT - 28 Participants
2011 WCCC - 9 participants
2011 Leiden - 8 Participants
2011 CCT - 20 Participants
2012 Leiden ICT - 8 Participants
2012 CCT - 18 Participants
2012 ACCA - 11 Participants
2012 ACCA Pan-America - 6 Participants

2013 CCT - 24 Participants

Do you see a pattern here? The CCT tournament is by far the most participated event _every_ calendar year. Also what other tournament posts _instant_ results on this forum and it's website, plus has the games available for download after each round with in seconds of it completing?

Peter

I did not mean to besmirch it, if that is how it came off. Besides, you know I support CCT. The option to post news on it, is not in my hands, though I can lobby for it. For that to happen, it would need to be transmitted on Playchess, but even so I cannot make promises out of my control. If there is an interest in this happening, tell me and I can promise to make a pitch.

In any case, I don't think the idea is to pitch it as the event where cyber chess gods play. Instead, I think that the opposite should be done: pitch it as the wide variety of engines, weak and strong, where accessible opponents can be found and played against.

I think that outside of the geeks in this forum and others of its kind, the average user has not the faintest idea that chess engines number the hundreds, not units. That the programmers who build them do so for the sport and fascination, and each is unique, with varied weaknesses and strength just as your random human encounter. Show them how to make use of those engines in an easy way (think of the easiest instructions you can, the kind for your mother, and consider them twice too complicated), and link them to the participants. Etc. Humanize it. A picture of the programmer, a game, however absurd (actually a selling point), etc.

I think the whole interest in these things has been on the decline ever since the engines became untouchable, and while everyone admires Houdini, Rybka and Fritz, they would not dream of playing them.

On the website there are links to the individual engines that are provided during registration, and there is a replay zone of past events. (CCT7, CCT8, CCT9 thus far) I had considered making a page for each engine, but as I pay for the server myself I don't want it chewing through terabytes of data each month.

The previous version of the website had sliders stating the same things that you suggested. Original programmers, community here at Talkchess for discussion and help, and variance of strength.

These are not things I simply didn't state on the site. I removed those sliders to take back some screen real estate.

Peter

[jshriver]

Not sure if I have my math right, but if this starts at 1pm, UTC+1, that's 7am, EST US and 4am California time?

Just making sure I have it right.

-Josh

[Raptor]

To Be Honest, I can even see Albert's proposal and HGM's server co-existing.

As Albert has said, we can broadcast games on Playchess.com, like for example Graham is doing with ChessGUI, the only difference would be rather than playing a comp-comp match on Graham's computer, over here we will play that between two programs on HGM's server.

In Which case, the usability and guest chat and every positive HGM speaks about is utilized, by using his server as the stage so to speak, but at the same time I must also say that for viewing games, I personally liked Playchess a lot.

And I personally would volunteer to broadcast every game Raptor plays in CCT on Playchess as well, via some sorts of a relay.

I think in it would be great to tap on to positives of both, since we actually can.

my two cents,Steve

[CRoberson]

To Be Honest, I can even see Albert's proposal and HGM's server co-existing.

As Albert has said, we can broadcast games on Playchess.com, like for example Graham is doing with ChessGUI, the only difference would be rather than playing a comp-comp match on Graham's computer, over here we will play that between two programs on HGM's server.

In Which case, the usability and guest chat and every positive HGM speaks about is utilized, by using his server as the stage so to speak, but at the same time I must also say that for viewing games, I personally liked Playchess a lot.

And I personally would volunteer to broadcast every game Raptor plays in CCT on Playchess as well, via some sorts of a relay.

I think in it would be great to tap on to positives of both, since we actually can.

my two cents,Steve

Yes, we are talking about two different usage models. When I spectate, I usually use Dasher on ICC. When I enter my program in an event, I use Xboard or ChessPartner. I have used Chessbase program for Telepath and Ares as well. If I want to play against my engines, I prefer using the Chessbase product. It was a pain making Telepath and Ares both xboard and UCI compatible, but it was worth it to me.

I have been on playchess before in the old freestyle events and enjoyed it immensely. Overall, from a spectator point of view I prefer Dasher and the Chessbase product. They have been better for watching multiple games simultaneously.

The Winboard/Xboard project has evolved very well over the years and especially so with HGM's work, but it is a bit slanted to us researchers and I like that.

It is just a matter of different usage models.

Yes, I think the CCT could be relayed on playchess from HGM's server.