Some tweaks to the CCT rules

[mathmoi]

I think, in this case, you need to ask Padre in which team he wants to play.

[jdart]

I'm sure the TD has good reasons for rule 2 and its subparts, but it's much more restrictive than has been the case in the past.

For example, I have operated programs (sometimes >1 program) at events where the authors could not be present. Not optimal but it allowed programs to participate which otherwise wouldn't be there. Their authors benefited and their opponents weren't harmed as far I know. I guess if an operator were malicious he/she could manipulate results in some way, having control over two members of the tourney - I realize that's a possibility. But has that ever been even alleged to have happened?

This year I was unable to participate because of a scheduling conflict I had. I don't have a designated team standing by to fill in for me. I'm not likely to have one next year either.

Maybe you could relax this rule for programs that are not top seeds and therefore (IMO) less likely to have a dedicated team?

[Harvey Williamson]

I'm sure the TD has good reasons for rule 2 and its subparts, but it's much more restrictive than has been the case in the past.

For example, I have operated programs (sometimes >1 program) at events where the authors could not be present. Not optimal but it allowed programs to participate which otherwise wouldn't be there. Their authors benefited and their opponents weren't harmed as far I know. I guess if an operator were malicious he/she could manipulate results in some way, having control over two members of the tourney - I realize that's a possibility. But has that ever been even alleged to have happened?

This year I was unable to participate because of a scheduling conflict I had. I don't have a designated team standing by to fill in for me. I'm not likely to have one next year either.

Maybe you could relax this rule for programs that are not top seeds and therefore (IMO) less likely to have a dedicated team?

I think it is important that whoever operates the program at least has a good knowledge of the program. The teams that you refer to are volunteers we do not get paid.

[CRoberson]

I agree with changing the disconnect time to 10 minutes. We have gotten much more complicated in recent years than the old days.

I disagree with the kibitzing issue penalty. Yes, they must kibitz and not whisper. It is too easy to accidentally start up with kibitzing off. For me, ChessPartner handles it and I just have to click on a button and set the proper ICC/FICS variables. However, the cluster version of Telepath doesn't work with ChessPartner, it works with Xboard. In Xboard, I have to start it up with an extra command line option to send to Telepath. Very easy to forget that.

Fixing the forgotten kibitz in ChessPartner may not require a disconnect but it does in Xboard.

So, I agree with Miguel. When a person notices opponent not kibitzing, they inform the opponent and then the TD. The opponent must fix it immediately even if it means using one of the disconnects. If they have to use a second disconnect because they botched the job the first time then that is fine too.

The biggest problem we have with kibitzing is with the people that continually try to use Arena. It has never worked with kibitzing in any online tournament I've seen. The Arena guys claim it works, but I've never seen it work.

So, some early warning message may be in order to warn people that Arena is unlikely to work with kibitzing on FICS/ICC.

The second biggest problem is people complaining that it is not kibitzing when it is. The problem is when kib and allowkib variables are incorrectly set. This problem comes up multiple times per tournament. The only reason I call it the second biggest issue is because it is so easy to fix, however it appears more often than the first one.

The third sort of nonproblem with kibitzing is deep books. Some can not kibitz that it is a book move and their opponents think it is not kibitzing on move 27. This one is sort of easy to deal with; just check the clocks. There is the special case of falling out of and back into book.

That issue came up 2 years ago at the ACCA Pan AM event in Thinker vs Crafty. People were complaining that Thinker wasn't kibitzing. Lance said it was still in book while Crafty had been out of book for almost 10 moves. Bob checked his log files and Thinker was indeed making immediate moves. When it finally came out of book, it started kibitzing.

[bob]

I agree with changing the disconnect time to 10 minutes. We have gotten much more complicated in recent years than the old days.

I disagree with the kibitzing issue penalty. Yes, they must kibitz and not whisper. It is too easy to accidentally start up with kibitzing off. For me, ChessPartner handles it and I just have to click on a button and set the proper ICC/FICS variables. However, the cluster version of Telepath doesn't work with ChessPartner, it works with Xboard. In Xboard, I have to start it up with an extra command line option to send to Telepath. Very easy to forget that.

Fixing the forgotten kibitz in ChessPartner may not require a disconnect but it does in Xboard.

Doesn't for me, I just use the zippy2 password and tell crafty to kibitz and it is done. I then add it to the crafty.rc file and it is fixed for the rest of the games...

I have a single complaint, and it can easily be addressed. I do not buy all of this bullshit about "I can't kibitz on a ponder hit" or other such nonsense. Fix the program(s). Crafty kibitzes after _every_ move. Everyone else can do this too. Or else play somewhere else. This is not that hard to fix, but some simply refuse to do so. My philosophy is to either (a) follow _all_ the rules; (b) don't play. No middle ground because none is necessary. yet each online event produces more exceptions.

So, I agree with Miguel. When a person notices opponent not kibitzing, they inform the opponent and then the TD. The opponent must fix it immediately even if it means using one of the disconnects. If they have to use a second disconnect because they botched the job the first time then that is fine too.

The biggest problem we have with kibitzing is with the people that continually try to use Arena. It has never worked with kibitzing in any online tournament I've seen. The Arena guys claim it works, but I've never seen it work.

So, some early warning message may be in order to warn people that Arena is unlikely to work with kibitzing on FICS/ICC.

The second biggest problem is people complaining that it is not kibitzing when it is. The problem is when kib and allowkib variables are incorrectly set. This problem comes up multiple times per tournament. The only reason I call it the second biggest issue is because it is so easy to fix, however it appears more often than the first one.

The third sort of nonproblem with kibitzing is deep books. Some can not kibitz that it is a book move and their opponents think it is not kibitzing on move 27. This one is sort of easy to deal with; just check the clocks. There is the special case of falling out of and back into book.

Or why not just do the obvious and kibitz book moves? I do it. _anyone_ can do it. Or else just not play...

That issue came up 2 years ago at the ACCA Pan AM event in Thinker vs Crafty. People were complaining that Thinker wasn't kibitzing. Lance said it was still in book while Crafty had been out of book for almost 10 moves. Bob checked his log files and Thinker was indeed making immediate moves. When it finally came out of book, it started kibitzing.

[bob]

Hello everyone,

Before, during, and after CCT12, there were many rules "tweaks" that were suggested, and I think they are a terrific idea.

In reference to rule:

Code: Select all

2. Only the original author, Operator or a team member of the original program may enter and operate. The definition of a team member is as follows:

An individual who has internal knowledge of the program and is recognized by the author as a member of the development team.. i.e. Developer, book maker. This person must have advanced knowledge of the program, such as how the program is designed, hashing schemes, book making procedures..

2a. Operators will only be allowed under the following conditions:

2a1. The author must be online during the tournament to participate in discussions in channel 64, and in the event there is an issue with their program they can provide real time support to their operator.

2a2. The operator must use the account that the author has signed up. No exceptions will be made.

2a3. No operator can operate more than one program. No exceptions will be made.

Over the course of the event, we had several authors online, but their operators were AFK. Unusual, but true.

I propose that Author's pick an "operator" or two NOW, train them on engine parameters and which interface/books you would prefer to use. This way, if an event comes up where you need hardware, you have someone readily available, and can perform. They essentially would become "Team Members", thus nullifying the need for an "operator".

You have a full year now to get one or two people ready for the next CCT event, and you have the ACCA events coming up. So I would HIGHLY recommend this practice.

In reference to rule:

Code: Select all

2. No manually operated programs, and all programs must kibitz their evaluation, and book moves/TB hits if possible. Providing as much information as possible for the viewers and participants is key. It should also be noted that 1-3 lines of text is sufficient. No need to scroll out an entire page.

Whispering is NOT what the rule states. It states kibitzing it mandatory. We had several participants who whispered instead of kibitzing, or kibitzed nothing.

Next year, it will be very simple to avoid any complaints. If you are not kibitzing at the beginning of your game, you will forfeit. If you decide that you do not want to abide by this rule, do not enter. It will be strictly enforced.

As to the book makers:

Two teams will not be able to use a book created from the same book maker.

i.e. Ted Langreck makes Crafty's books. He would be prevented from making a book for another participant. Just as a participant would be prevented from using a book created by him.

If we only allow one engine per author, then we only allow one book per book maker. That is fair right?

This sounds utterly absurd to me.

Why? Should it be OK for me to work on several programs? We have five members working on Crafty. We could split it into 5 different programs that are almost identical, and each of us enter a different version and greatly increase our chances of winning. This is a team vs team competition using programs developed by each _team_. The WCCC adopted this rule several years ago and its a good one. One person per program, whether he codes or writes the book does not matter. Can't be on two different teams at the same time. Huge conflict of interest.

Ok one to this one:

Code: Select all

5. In the event of a disconnection, the party will be given 5 minutes to return to complete the game and no more than 2 disconnections  per game will be allowed. On the third time, the game will be a forfeit.

This one is being changed to 10 minutes, instead of 5. Nothing too significant, but should correct some issues.

More are coming, as I decide how to word them.

Peter

[CRoberson]

For me, its a command line start up option that I didn't encode into the xboard/uci protocol subsystem. I could do that.

For the uci engines, polylgot could be modified to kib "book move", but not all the uci based programs use polyglot. If they use Aquarium, ChessAssistant or ChessPartner they don't have that level of control, so its not an option for them.

[Peter Skinner]

I'm sure the TD has good reasons for rule 2 and its subparts, but it's much more restrictive than has been the case in the past.

For example, I have operated programs (sometimes >1 program) at events where the authors could not be present. Not optimal but it allowed programs to participate which otherwise wouldn't be there. Their authors benefited and their opponents weren't harmed as far I know. I guess if an operator were malicious he/she could manipulate results in some way, having control over two members of the tourney - I realize that's a possibility. But has that ever been even alleged to have happened?

This year I was unable to participate because of a scheduling conflict I had. I don't have a designated team standing by to fill in for me. I'm not likely to have one next year either.

Maybe you could relax this rule for programs that are not top seeds and therefore (IMO) less likely to have a dedicated team?

At the last minute I ran Amyan for Antonio. He had a scheduling conflict, so I offered to run it on another PC in the house.

I would have ran Arasan too if you wanted. I realize things come up at the last minute. In the event this happens next year, I would gladly run Arasan for you. Even if it is only for a round, or the whole event.

I would prefer you be there however.

[Aaron Becker]

Crafty kibitzes after _every_ move. Everyone else can do this too. Or else play somewhere else. This is not that hard to fix, but some simply refuse to do so. My philosophy is to either (a) follow _all_ the rules; (b) don't play. No middle ground because none is necessary. yet each online event produces more exceptions.

Is there a compliant way of making xboard kibbitz book moves from a uci engine? I'm not aware of a way to make this work, currently.

[jdart]

I would have ran Arasan too if you wanted. I realize things come up at the last minute. In the event this happens next year, I would gladly run Arasan for you. Even if it is only for a round, or the whole event.

I would prefer you be there however.

I appreciate the offer - but I assumed that was not possible due to the posted rules.