2007 World Computer Rapid Chess Championships: Final Results

[bob]

http://www.taccl.org/2007PresResults.html

all the games are now available to download as a pgn.

Hello Harvey!

I am sorry it to say, but in my eyes Hiarcs played very bad in the last Round 14.

See self:

[Event "ICC tourney 772 (28 1 u)"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2007.07.22"]
[Round "14"]
[White "TerraPi"]
[Black "Hiarcs8x"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C97"]
[PlyCount "427"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[Source "ICC tourney"]
[SourceDate "2007.07.22"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. a3 Bd7 13. b4 cxb4 14. axb4 Nc6 15. d5
Nb8 16. Bd3 Ra7 17. Be3 Rb7 18. Nfd2 Qc8 19. Nb3 Bd8 20. Na5 Bxa5 21. Rxa5 Qd8
22. Nd2 Qe7 23. Ra3 Rc8 24. Qe2 Ne8 25. Nf1 Rbc7 26. Rc1 Qf6 27. Qh5 h6 28. Ng3
Kf8 29. Qd1 Kg8 30. Qd2 Qg6 31. Rca1 Nf6 32. Kh1 Nh7 33. Kh2 Qf6 34. Qe1 Qh4
35. f3 Nf8 36. Ne2 Qxe1 37. Rxe1 Ng6 38. g4 Nh4 39. Kg3 g5 40. Rea1 Be8 41. Kf2
Rb7 42. Ra5 f6 43. Bc2 Bg6 44. R5a3 Kf8 45. Bd3 Ke7 46. Kg3 Bf7 47. Ra5 h5 48.
Rc1 Ng6 49. Kf2 h4 50. Rca1 Nf8 51. R5a2 Nfd7 52. Kg2 Nb6 53. Bc2 Nc4 54. Bf2
Bg6 55. Bb3 Kf7 56. Nc1 Kg7 57. Nd3 Kf7 58. Kg1 Rbc7 59. Rd1 Kg7 60. Kf1 Kh7
61. Rc1 Rb7 62. Rca1 Kg7 63. Kg1 Bf7 64. Kg2 Kg8 65. Re2 Kf8 66. Kh2 Rbc7 67.
Bd1 Bg6 68. Rea2 Kg8 69. Kg2 Kf7 70. Kf1 Ke7 71. Rc1 Bf7 72. Bb3 Kf8 73. Rd1
Kg7 74. Kg2 Kf8 75. Kh2 Kg7 76. Raa1 Kf8 77. Kg2 Kg7 78. Bc2 Rb7 79. Rdc1 Nd2
80. Ra3 Rbc7 81. Rd1 Nc4 82. Ra2 Be8 83. Bb3 Rb7 84. Rf1 Rbc7 85. Rc1 Kf8 86.
Rb1 Bf7 87. Bc2 Bg6 88. Rd1 Rb7 89. Bb3 Bh7 90. Rda1 Bg6 91. Rc1 Bf7 92. Kh2
Ke7 93. Rca1 Bg6 94. Kh1 Rbc7 95. Rd1 Kf8 96. Kh2 Bh7 97. Rb1 Kf7 98. Kg1 Bg8
99. Bxc4 Rxc4 100. Be1 Bh7 101. Rba1 Bg6 102. Bd2 Ke7 103. Nc1 Bh7 104. Ne2
R4c7 105. Be3 Bg6 106. Bb6 Rb7 107. Bf2 Rcc7 108. Kg2 Rc4 109. Ra3 Rbc7 110.
Bb6 Rd7 111. Be3 Rc8 112. R3a2 Rdc7 113. Ra5 Bf7 114. Bb6 Rb7 115. Bf2 Ke8 116.
Be3 Kd7 117. R1a2 Bg6 118. Rc2 Rc4 119. Rd2 Ke7 120. Rda2 Rbc7 121. Ra1 Kf7
122. Bf2 Kg7 123. Bb6 Rb7 124. Be3 Kf7 125. R5a2 Ke7 126. Rd1 Rbc7 127. Bb6 Rd7
128. Rda1 Rb7 129. Be3 Bf7 130. Ra5 Rd7 131. Bb6 Rc8 132. Bf2 Rb7 133. R5a2 Ke8
134. Kh2 Rbc7 135. Bb6 Rd7 136. Ra3 Ke7 137. Bf2 Rdc7 138. Kg2 Bg6 139. Ra5 Ke8
140. Be3 Rb7 141. R5a2 Rcc7 142. Ra3 Ke7 143. Ra5 Rc8 144. Rd1 Kf8 145. Ra3
Rbc7 146. Rda1 Ke7 147. R1a2 Rb7 148. Kf1 Rbc7 149. Ra5 Nd7 150. Rxa6 Be8 151.
Kg2 Rb7 152. Ra1 Nf8 153. R1a5 Ng6 154. Kf2 Nf8 155. Kg1 Rcb8 156. Ra1 Nd7 157.
Ba7 Rd8 158. Kf2 Rc8 159. Kg2 Nb8 160. R6a2 Nd7 161. Bg1 Rcb8 162. Nc1 Rc7 163.
Ra3 Nb6 164. Bxb6 Rxb6 165. Kf2 Rb8 166. Ne2 Rbc8 167. Kg2 Rb8 168. R3a2 Rbc8
169. Ra6 Rb7 170. R6a5 Bg6 171. Kg1 Kd7 172. Kf2 Rcc7 173. Ke3 Rc8 174. Kd3 Be8
175. Kd2 Ke7 176. Ra6 Kd7 177. Kc1 Bf7 178. Kc2 Be8 179. Kb3 Bf7 180. R6a5 Be8
181. Kc2 Kd8 182. Re1 Kd7 183. Kb2 Bg6 184. Rea1 Bf7 185. Nc1 Kc7 186. Nd3 Be8
187. Nf2 Kd8 188. Ra6 Ke7 189. Nd1 Bd7 190. Kc2 Rcc7 191. R1a3 Rb8 192. Ne3
Rcb7 193. Ra7 Bc8 194. R3a6 Bd7 195. Rxb7 Rxb7 196. c4 bxc4 197. Kc3 Rc7 198.
b5 Rb7 199. b6 Rb8 200. Nxc4 Bb5 201. Ra7+ Bd7 202. Kb4 Kd8 203. Ka5 Bc8 204.
Nxd6 Bd7 205. Nb7+ Ke8 206. Nc5 Rd8 207. b7 Rb8 208. Ra8 Rxa8+ 209. bxa8=Q+ Ke7
210. Qg8 Be8 211. Ne6 Kd7 212. Qg7+ Bf7 213. Qxf7+ Kd6 214. Qc7# 1-0

The Black moves was not played like a Grandmaster in my eyes. Sorry.

BTW: What was with the 50 moves Rules?
In my eyes black (Hiarcs) played in move 149 a 50 rules move and loss a pawn.

A draw was not enough we had to win so when we got into the Father type position I changed contempt to the value of 1 pawn this obviously messed things up.

But we had to win to get 13/14 to be = 1st with Rybka. In round 14 we get by sods law the worst opening of the tournament.

Do you have any comments on Rybka v Hiarcs from this tournament?

I am completely mystified by that comment. Once the first move is played, the _operator_ is not allowed to change _anything_. This has been a rule in computer chess tournaments since 1970. If this is a true statement, as a TD I would ban the program from ever participating in another event, because this is known as "blatant cheating"...

Am I reading this wrong???

[bob]

A draw was not enough we had to win so when we got into the Father type position I changed contempt to the value of 1 pawn this obviously messed things up.

How did you do that? In the middle of a game you can change the parameters of Hiarcs without the need to restart Hiarcs?
Or did you restart/re-upload it?

Also the opening was indeed a disaster for both engines and mostly for Hiarcs since it was trying to win the tournament.
That's why after the unusual 12.a3 you should always play 12...cxd4 to have an open file that the engines will find something to do with it. I guess you've learned that now.


Hiarcs of course would not lose this game if you didn't change the contempt value and this game would be a draw.
Normally you will reply saying that this game ended with a Hiarcs loss and there are no "if".....
But i insist saying there are "if".....

Hi George,

You can change settings during a game it has 2 effects. If it is yur turn to move as you 'ok' the change the engine will move instantly. If it is your opponents move all Hiarcs onder will stop.

If you want to try it play a game on Playchess with any engine. While the game is playing right click on engine pane and click properties and make your changes. I was using Chess Partner yesterday a GUI I am not familiar with but it seemed to work the same.

I very much enjoyed this tournament it was great fun and we just got bad luck in round 14.

Best Wishes,

Harvey

This misses the main point. Why do you think it is ok to violate the tournament rules that say the engine has to play _by itself_ without any operator intervention?

This is beyond me. You simply can't change _anything_ once the game starts. And by "anything" I mean _ANYTHING_...

It is a perfect reason for disqualification on the spot.

[bob]

Hi Harvey,

I think that it is a general rule in computer chess not to allow changing setting during the game.

Without that rule you have not computer chess but type of advanced chess.

Uri

Not the first time that an operator in one of these events got so involved with his charge that he took over and 'cheated' (assuming it was not allowed by the rules), either knowingly or through plain enthusiasm.

to accuse Harvey of cheating is ridiculous
he posted here honestly to give those here an insight as to what a top level operator did during a match of the very highest level
if he thought he cheated do you think he would post that here?

how many TOP operators even come here to share their experiences during a an intense moment of high level competition?

all this post does is convince Harvey he made a mistake in sharing his thoughts

i notice that there are several members here with Mediocre Engines that have an awful lot of negative comments to post
oddly i never see these engines in high level competition

now why is that i wonder??

Pffft Regards
Steve

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...

[Steve B]

yes i can see that
none the less..a remark about ones engine is not the same thing as a personal attack against a member and therefore should not be moderated as it is not in conflict with the charter

Indeed. But calling someone a 'low-level programmer' is. I don't think that anyone could read that as a remark about an engine...

This seems a perfect explanation for why your original 'mediocre' post was not deleted, but your 'low-level' post was.

that term means a programmer of a lower rated Engine

it was an observation that three programmers of lower rated engines were IMHO attacking a top engine
and i mentioned NOONE by name

and it is ok to call someone a fanboy???

it is clear that my posts are not so valued here as the posts of any engine author

it is INCORRECT for a moderator to delete a post when one of the three members involved in a debate is the one complaining

Steve

Fanboys is not a nice term I should have said simply fans. As I said I would like your post reinstated; and have no problem with my post being deleted or edited to say fans instead of fanboys.

I went to great lengths to try to make it clear I was neither attacking 'top engines' nor operators.

Hi,

I think the time has come to lock this thread and let it die a natural death as Wael has suggested. First I think as Frank requests steve's post should be reinstated.

Harvey

i agree
the more posts added to it the more it spins out of control

my posting presence here for now is finished

see you when elections are held...

If Ever Regards
Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

A draw was not enough we had to win so when we got into the Father type position I changed contempt to the value of 1 pawn this obviously messed things up.

How did you do that? In the middle of a game you can change the parameters of Hiarcs without the need to restart Hiarcs?
Or did you restart/re-upload it?

Also the opening was indeed a disaster for both engines and mostly for Hiarcs since it was trying to win the tournament.
That's why after the unusual 12.a3 you should always play 12...cxd4 to have an open file that the engines will find something to do with it. I guess you've learned that now.


Hiarcs of course would not lose this game if you didn't change the contempt value and this game would be a draw.
Normally you will reply saying that this game ended with a Hiarcs loss and there are no "if".....
But i insist saying there are "if".....

Hi George,

You can change settings during a game it has 2 effects. If it is yur turn to move as you 'ok' the change the engine will move instantly. If it is your opponents move all Hiarcs onder will stop.

If you want to try it play a game on Playchess with any engine. While the game is playing right click on engine pane and click properties and make your changes. I was using Chess Partner yesterday a GUI I am not familiar with but it seemed to work the same.

I very much enjoyed this tournament it was great fun and we just got bad luck in round 14.

Best Wishes,

Harvey

This misses the main point. Why do you think it is ok to violate the tournament rules that say the engine has to play _by itself_ without any operator intervention?

This is beyond me. You simply can't change _anything_ once the game starts. And by "anything" I mean _ANYTHING_...

It is a perfect reason for disqualification on the spot.

I think looking back you are right and it was wrong. I will not operate another tournament on ICC. However I will point out that various other rules were openly broken and nobody seemed to care.

For eg. during my game with Crafty I saw no info was kibitzed.

Also just because I said I did this is round 14 of this tournament does it mean others have not always done this quietly?

Or during the many disconnects that happen every tournament. This is my last post on the subject and I will punish myself by not operating in any tournament on ICC again.

[bob]

well there you go again
do i need an engine to think your post is basically a troll considering it was made well AFTER Harvey explained what happened?

your post sounds like sour grapes to me probably because your engine lost in previous matches (perhaps even to Hiarcs)

and i dont know what your engine is nor do i have an interest in learning which one it is

Steve

Steve:

You really should butt out here. We have explicit rules for these events, and the most sacred of all is the rule that says the operator may not change _anything_ once the game starts. If the operator can influence time usage, help select openings on the fly, decide when a program should search longer, then suddenly it is not program vs program, but it becomes something else. And that something "else" is not what computer chess tournaments are about.

The operator is expected to know, and _FOLLOW_ the rules. No exceptions. No "I didn't know that". That's why we require automatic interfaces, which reduces the opportunity for operator intervention.

This behavior was poor, and against the rules. Plain and simple... Once the game starts, it is completely "hands off".

[bob]

Well, we could of course still discuss if it is a good idea, in cases where top programs break the rules in order to enlarge their advantage over their opponents, to deny others the right to object against this, just because their programs are mediocre...

i will leave you to discuss this is further if you are interested in it
and i suspect you would have no problem discussing it even with yourself

i am finished with the topic as i suspect Harvey is finished posting here about his experiences in top level competition

the next time you misinterpret the rules in a high level event please post all of your thoughts here so we can rake you over the coals and call you a liar and a cheater and worse even

Have A nice Day
Steve

That's stupid. How can one misinterpret this rule that has been used in CC events since the early 70's:

6. All monitors must be positioned so that the operator’s activities are clearly visible to the opponent. An operator may only: [a] enter moves, respond to a request from the computer for clock information, and [c] synchronize the computer clock to the normal chess clock. Misuse of this rule will be punished by the Tournament Director. If an operator needs to enter other information, it must be approved ahead of time by the Tournament Director. The operator may not query the system to see if it is alive without the permission of the Tournament Director.

Part of that doesn't apply here, because WCCC events are not automated and operators have to enter moves and respond to questions about the clocks. In CCT events we don't even require that since we require a completely automatic interface, and ICC provides all the above information automatically.

How can one misinterpret the above to suddenly conclude that the operator can twiddle with the contempt factor (or other settings) and that it is OK?

makes no sense.

[bob]

A minor oversight in the debate was to mention that Harvey couldnt be accused of cheating because how could he if he now reported here exactly what he had done during the game. Here it is obviously confused what someone thought about his own behavior and what that meant from an objective perspective. It doesnt mean the same IMO.

Exactly, except I'd say it's a major oversight.
If Harvey had knowingly cheated, he wouldn't be dumb enough to openly post about it.

Food for thought: You grow up on a deserted island, and then move to some populated country where you promptly kill someone when he bumps into you. Did you commit a murder, even though you didn't "know" it was against the law?

Of course you did.

An operator has to be expected to know the rules prior to participation. Only a fool would try to race in a NASCAR event without knowing all the rules they have in place. I've organized many computer chess events. We've always used the same rules, and we expect that the operators are knowledgeable about the rules being used. That's one of the responsibilities of the operator, in fact. To know what is expected of him if he participates.

How this was not cheating (intentional or unintentional doesn't matter with respect to whether it was wrong or not) is simply beyond me. Rules are rules, and they exist for a reason. And can not be ignored when it is advantageous to do so.

[bob]

Hi Harvey,

I think that it is a general rule in computer chess not to allow changing setting during the game.

Without that rule you have not computer chess but type of advanced chess.

I agree.

If Harvey is correct(and i guess he is) that when you change an engine's parameter while it is thinking and press OK to apply the setting, then the engine plays immediately, then we have:

Imagine the consequences from a programmer to be able to
interfere during his engine's game:

-He is able to force a move for his engine.
If for example the programmer wants his engine not to spend more time in searching an obvious move he just opens the parameters change or not change something, press OK and the engine plays the move it is thinking.
Another example is when the engine is between 2 moves but only one is good(it happens many times) and the programmer knows this, so when the engine shows as the best move in the PV, the really better move, then the programmer does the same trick to force his engine to play this best move.

-He can program settings like "play more attacking now", "play for a draw now", "play more slowly now" in his engine and then during the game when he learns for example that the engine which fights for the first place with his engine loses and a draw for his engine is good enough to win the tournament he may change the setting to "play for draw now" so the draw will come easier.
Or if he learns that he needs to win for winning the tournament he may set the "play more attacking now" during the game. Or if he sees that his engine plays a bit slowly he may set "play faster" etc.....

There is a huge number of things/parameters/tricks one can do to help his engine, if the intervention between the programmer is allowed.....

That makes it advanced Chess and not engine-engine Chess.....

The lesson I have learned here is after a tournament whatever the result just to keep quiet like all the other programers do.

Attempting to give some insight as to what was actually happening at the time is a waste of time - in future when we score 12/14 I will keep quiet.

If you are not going to follow the published rules, in the future I would hope there is no "future" for such participants.

[bob]

The lesson I have learned here is after a tournament whatever the result just to keep quiet like all the other programers do.

Attempting to give some insight as to what was actually happening at the time is a waste of time - in future when we score 12/14 I will keep quiet.

Hi Harvey,
Congrats on the wonderful performance of Hiarcs. I think it is one of the few engines that has been striving hard to keep up with Rybka and is being successful.
And thanks for sharing your insights. It is always fascinating to know what the operators are thinking.
To others, maybe in future, it is a good idea to have the rules clearly laid out before the tournament- maybe no user intervention at all - or allow operators to accept/ reject draws and modify the contempt factor etc.

This has been a rule since the first computer chess tournament was held... It has never changed. We modified it for ICC events to not even allow the operator to input moves or time information, by requiring an automatic interface which (in theory obviously, not in practice it seems) eliminates _all_ operator intervention. Or at least it does for most of us.

Let there be no gray areas. I think before modifying the contempt factor, the TD should have been approached- who would have most likely rejected the proposal. Good thing is, it did not alter the final outcome.
A well deserved second place for Hiarcs.
Cheers,