Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Not good enough yet....a lot of holes hangs out there....
Dr.D
Then by all means, provide me with suggestions and let's openly talk about them.
I _encourage_ people to make suggestions. This is after all _your_ tournament. I hold it purely as my contribution to this community for everything it has given me in the way of enjoying chess programs for the last 17 yrs or so.
Do you _really_ think it is fun to have to stay up all night waiting for games to finish, record the games, deal with childish sniping, and above all be bored half to death at times because no one is chatting?
I try to make it as fair as possible for everyone.
Input is not only accepted, it is encouraged.
Peter
My suggestion is simple. ICC/FICS really can't handle disconnects very well. You can either disallow them completely (one disconnect = loss) or you allow an infinite number, which is also bad. I wish there was an option where you set it to N, rather than 0 (infinite disconnects) or 1 (no disconnects) so that it would terminate the game on the nth disconnect. Since this is not possible, I think the rule should simply be purely draconian. 3rd disconnect is a forfeit. Someone informs the TD, the game ends. Don't require it to be a team member, or the operator, every game has observers, let any of them send the TD a tell, the TD can verify without using that person's name, the game ends, life goes on. I don't like the "out" that one _could_ continue to play on. I'd like to play on beyond mate at times. For me, rules without exceptions are far easier to deal with, cause fewer arguments, and keep things totally fair.
I second Bob's suggestion, but I would not call it draconian if N is reasonable. If is unfortunate, but the connection is part of the "chess entity" that is participating.
In fact, it follows the concept that the operator should have the minimum interference in the game. If the operator "decides" not to claim the win, it is in fact a huge interference, not only in that particular game, but in the whole tournament. It could easily benefit or harm a third party.
michiguel wrote:
I second Bob's suggestion, but I would not call it draconian if N is reasonable. If is unfortunate, but the connection is part of the "chess entity" that is participating.
In fact, it follows the concept that the operator should have the minimum interference in the game. If the operator "decides" not to claim the win, it is in fact a huge interference, not only in that particular game, but in the whole tournament. It could easily benefit or harm a third party.
Miguel
I have changed the rule to:
Disconnection/Forfeit Rules
1. In the event of a disconnection, the party will be given 10 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 is absolute. Under no circumstances will the game continue.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Not good enough yet....a lot of holes hangs out there....
Dr.D
Then by all means, provide me with suggestions and let's openly talk about them.
I _encourage_ people to make suggestions. This is after all _your_ tournament. I hold it purely as my contribution to this community for everything it has given me in the way of enjoying chess programs for the last 17 yrs or so.
Do you _really_ think it is fun to have to stay up all night waiting for games to finish, record the games, deal with childish sniping, and above all be bored half to death at times because no one is chatting?
I try to make it as fair as possible for everyone.
Input is not only accepted, it is encouraged.
Peter
My suggestion is simple. ICC/FICS really can't handle disconnects very well. You can either disallow them completely (one disconnect = loss) or you allow an infinite number, which is also bad. I wish there was an option where you set it to N, rather than 0 (infinite disconnects) or 1 (no disconnects) so that it would terminate the game on the nth disconnect. Since this is not possible, I think the rule should simply be purely draconian. 3rd disconnect is a forfeit. Someone informs the TD, the game ends. Don't require it to be a team member, or the operator, every game has observers, let any of them send the TD a tell, the TD can verify without using that person's name, the game ends, life goes on. I don't like the "out" that one _could_ continue to play on. I'd like to play on beyond mate at times. For me, rules without exceptions are far easier to deal with, cause fewer arguments, and keep things totally fair.
I think it needs to be a team member, unless the TD has a way for verifying the disconnect count. We can't trust observers to count. When Telepath is in a match and a disconnect happens for either side, I get email with the pgn and who disconnected. It is easy for me to look at my email and count the disconnects.
For instance, lets say A disconnects twice and then B disconnects. How many spectators are going to think A disconnected 3 times? Some sort of viewable evidence is needed before the call is made or both opponents agreeing on what happened.
I agree that the TD and/or organizer can't keep up with all games accurately in a large tournament.
Is there a way for the TD/Organizer to get the pgn email of each game as they end and/or disconnect? That would make things easier.
5. In the event that the wrong colors are played, the programs will have 5 minutes to make the correction, or the program that issued the match request will forfeit the game.
The concept behind it is good. I am just concerned about the details.
There are all kinds of ways for accidents to happen in tournaments. Therefore, I would suggest that each participant has the first 5 minutes of the game (as measured by wall clock time) to make a statement about any issues pertaining to colors and such. After that wall clock 5 minutes, if there haven't been any issues raised then all stands. If there is a problem it has to be corrected within 5 wall clock minutes of the TD informing the competitors to do so. Failure to resolve the issue in that time results in forfeiture by the competitor in error.
Also, one could consider a rule that places a penalty on entrant that repeatedly causes this problem. Maybe a loss of a point for the second infraction and 2 points for the third .... Thus, you forfeit a game and lose extra points.
1. Each participant (engine) must an original work. No entry can contain code from another program, or be a "clone" of another program. This includes any "personality" settings of an originating program. This includes opening books.
Hi,
Does it include StockFish too?
3. The Tournament Director can ask for the compiled executable and corresponding source to the participating version of an engine to let it be examined by the previous mentioned notable sources. If the author of the engine that is suspect were to refuse to confirm the originality of his own work, the engine and the author will be disqualified from the CCT, and will no longer be able to participate in future events.
3. The Tournament Director can ask for the compiled executable and corresponding source to the participating version of an engine to let it be examined by the previous mentioned notable sources. If the author of the engine that is suspect were to refuse to confirm the originality of his own work, the engine and the author will be disqualified from the CCT, and will no longer be able to participate in future events.
Is it done for strong commercial engines too?
Hello Adam,
I suspect that strong commercial engines are beyond suspicion.
I believe that Tord is still a contributing author of Stockfish, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed to enter.
If someone wanted to challenge the code; well it is available for download, so it wouldn't be that hard...
Is it done for strong commercial engines too?
If you are referring to the likes of Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Sjeng, Zappa... well I think everyone would agree those authors are beyond suspicion.
If you are referring to Rybka, then please show me something to state the _current_ version is a clone of anything. If someone can provide solid reasoning behind the accusation, I would ask for the code to be sent to the team that I retain each CCT.
Those people know who they are (because they are on a specific mailing list and are at each event), but aren't named to protect them from the fanboyism that is rampant in our sport.
They are chess programmers or have been and I _guarantee_ you couldn't guess all three of them.
Here's a hint.. Robert isn't one of them
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
I believe that Tord is still a contributing author of Stockfish, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed to enter.
If someone wanted to challenge the code; well it is available for download, so it wouldn't be that hard...
Is it done for strong commercial engines too?
If you are referring to the likes of Junior, Shredder, Hiarcs, Sjeng, Zappa... well I think everyone would agree those authors are beyond suspicion.
If you are referring to Rybka, then please show me something to state the _current_ version is a clone of anything. If someone can provide solid reasoning behind the accusation, I would ask for the code to be sent to the team that I retain each CCT.
Those people know who they are (because they are on a specific mailing list and are at each event), but aren't named to protect them from the fanboyism that is rampant in our sport.
They are chess programmers or have been and I _guarantee_ you couldn't guess all three of them.
Here's a hint.. Robert isn't one of them
Peter
I think this warrants another rule: Rule infraction claims must come from the competitors not spectators.
There has been a rule in ACCA events (still is) and some CCT events that anybody that makes several unfounded claims of the clone rule may be removed from the tournament. This is to stop people from making numerous wild accusations.
If spectators are allowed the privilege of yelling clone, then they could bypass that rule and cause undue delay in the tournament.
1. Each participant (engine) must an original work. No entry can contain code from another program, or be a "clone" of another program. This includes any "personality" settings of an originating program. This includes opening books.
Hi,
Does it include StockFish too?
I believe that Tord is still a contributing author of Stockfish, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed to enter.
If someone wanted to challenge the code; well it is available for download, so it wouldn't be that hard...
But as I get the rule, you are particularly referring to engines, not original author, in this regards SF is based on Glaurang and it is not an original work itself.
If you are referring to Rybka, then please show me something to state the _current_ version is a clone of anything. If someone can provide solid reasoning behind the accusation, I would ask for the code to be sent to the team that I retain each CCT.
I am not referring to anything in particular, just trying to see if your rules are fair. Also interesting is the fact that you are interested in the _current_ version of an engine. In this regards soon codes of some new engines accused of being clones, could be different from what they are now. So they could compete in the tournament isn't it?
For me, rules without exceptions are far easier to deal with, cause fewer arguments, and keep things totally fair.
