An idea for a new WCCC format - what do you think?

[IWB]

Hello

Is there some evidence to suggest that this is true. For example, a past CCT winner who you think did something like this?

Formally, everything you can do in an internet tournament can also be done via remote play.

Vas

I dont have any evidence for an online fraud, but it is known that it already happened at live events. As the "criminal energy" to do this in an online event is much smaller the number of frauds will increase and are very hard to discover! If it doesnt happen yet it will happen for sure as soon as an important event as a WC would be played online! One may argue that it is a bad thinking to expect bad things but reality thaught me!

Bye
Ingo

[IWB]

Hello

The opposing issue is that internet tournaments attract _lots_ of participation due to reduced time required and zero cost to the particpants. WCCC is almost dead. It is on life support at the moment and the prognosis is not good if drastic action is not taken...

I cant and I will not argue against that as it is true - but what will happen with the valuation of a WC title if "strange" things happen? Just think about an accusation and the accused is not reacting anymore. Regardless if he will be thrown out or not the debate (here and elswhere) will never end! Just recently there was and still is a huge debate which cant be used as an example ...

I dont think that a "valuable computerchess tourney" should be held without the physical presence of the programers in one room and agree with Tord in the fact that beeing together with others in a tourney is much more fun.

Bye
Ingo

PS: There is absolutly NO doubt that a WC has to be covered on the internet nowaday in the best possible way to attract viewers!

[Uri Blass]

Hello

1. It be handled over a internet chess server such as ICC, Playchess
or something else, This could lead to some level of sponsorship
via a fee to the server to show it.

I personaly dont like the idea of playing a world championship on a remote server is a good idea. As cheating is easy you will have a suspicious situation as soon as an "outsider" wins some games vs the big players. Fakeing an engine output or nodes is much easier than to write a top class chess engine. I think an on site event is preventing cheating much better than an remote server thing (nothing is 100% of course and cheating was, is, and will be always possible and happen, but you should not make it that easy!

Bye
Ingo

PS: Just think about an "inbeween" program which is randomly multipling nodes within a certain frame and cutting or mixing PVs - some say it is already excisting!

You do realize this already happens? "people" attend the event, but they use "remote" computers. So it is already easy, and playing on a server does not make it any easier than it already is.

I think that the main difference is the risk for the cheater.

If you discover that somebody cheats in a remote server then the person may easily hide and you do not know who cheated because people can use false name and later participate in another remote server event with a different name.

If you discover that outsider cheats in on site event then the outsider cannot hide and everybody saw the outsider in the event(assuming programmers need to be there) so the risk for the cheater is bigger(maybe the outsider can try to do plastic surgery in order to paticipate later in another on site event but it is clearly harder and I do not think that people are going to do it for cheating).

Uri

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Is there some evidence to suggest that this is true. For example, a past CCT winner who you think did something like this?

Formally, everything you can do in an internet tournament can also be done via remote play.

Vas

There were disputes about Junior and SearcherX in the past. And that's only those I remember (I didn't play most CCT).

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

There are 2 strong points in favor of having a live tournament:

a) It's easier to get sponsors and publicity. And hence, rewards both material and nonmaterial, for winning!

b) It's human nature that the incentive to cheat is less if you are facing a person rather than in the anonymity of the internet.

I personally liked the way the Mainz events were done. An online qualifier followed by a live final round. Due to the reduced participants in the final, everybody's expenses paid, smaller number of rounds so easier to plan, easier to handle broadcasts, etc.

There is a risk that someone would cheat in the qualifier (eg by using another program) so he gets to attend the final. But you'd have no dispute about the eventual World Champion, which is what matters most.

I think there's nothing wrong with a qualifying event. It's a question I get asked a lot, if I talk about participating in the WCCC: "what did you do to qualify?" err, nothing?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

My main point against a live tournament would be that for whatever reason the internet coverage always seems to suck, even though it's as least as important as the event itself.

I should be well possible to have both working well, but I can count the events where I have been to and things were OK, on one hand...

[Rolf]

Hello

The opposing issue is that internet tournaments attract _lots_ of participation due to reduced time required and zero cost to the particpants. WCCC is almost dead. It is on life support at the moment and the prognosis is not good if drastic action is not taken...

I cant and I will not argue against that as it is true - but what will happen with the valuation of a WC title if "strange" things happen? Just think about an accusation and the accused is not reacting anymore. Regardless if he will be thrown out or not the debate (here and elswhere) will never end! Just recently there was and still is a huge debate which cant be used as an example ...

I dont think that a "valuable computerchess tourney" should be held without the physical presence of the programers in one room and agree with Tord in the fact that beeing together with others in a tourney is much more fun.

Bye
Ingo

PS: There is absolutly NO doubt that a WC has to be covered on the internet nowaday in the best possible way to attract viewers!

I saw three arguments and all are futile.

1) criminal energy afforded is lower in online

Proof: Case Louwman. He IMO wasnt a cheater and felt himself in a challenge, a sport, where tricks are part of the game, so energy to do that very low although under the eyes of all others

2) all participation in one closed room is much more fun and safer

Proof: Case Shredder vs Jonny, vd.Herigh decision without resistance of the players although completely absurd. A room as such where all are breathing the same air, isnt safer as such if the mentality of the players is that they either dont have the capabilities to fast analyses of group processes or they are members of a sports event with a personal rank oder in mind which can be influenced by their own behavior in conflict situations. The same when dubious entries are discussed minutes before the beginning of the first round when everybody is thinking about the functionality of his hardware...

3) a sort of intervening program exists behind the surface

Proof: guess that all use RYBKA as sort of such supervising program the general level of strength is higher but the genius of the original programmer (here of Rybka) gives him still advantages, just like it was in these "all is allowed" tournaments where dozens of tuned Rybkas are playing and Vasik or his wife, will be winning in the end. Basically it would be much more honest to see a human winning with machine support instead of an alleged machine competition with human or God's hand interfering... That will only end if the computers in future will create their own playing design automatically after digesting the list of participants... That would be fair then. However if it's true that one or two super GM interventions can change the whole game then it will remain what it always was: the better computer will win who has the best computer knowie among the super GM on his side.

[bob]

Sure, that's all part of the fun.

Vas

After having tried for 25+ years (Ken Thompson and I even put together a working "electronic referee" that worked with RS232C ports) it ceases to be fun and returns to being simply frustrating.

[bob]

Hello

1. It be handled over a internet chess server such as ICC, Playchess
or something else, This could lead to some level of sponsorship
via a fee to the server to show it.

I personaly dont like the idea of playing a world championship on a remote server is a good idea. As cheating is easy you will have a suspicious situation as soon as an "outsider" wins some games vs the big players. Fakeing an engine output or nodes is much easier than to write a top class chess engine. I think an on site event is preventing cheating much better than an remote server thing (nothing is 100% of course and cheating was, is, and will be always possible and happen, but you should not make it that easy!

Bye
Ingo

PS: Just think about an "inbeween" program which is randomly multipling nodes within a certain frame and cutting or mixing PVs - some say it is already excisting!

You do realize this already happens? "people" attend the event, but they use "remote" computers. So it is already easy, and playing on a server does not make it any easier than it already is.

Sure I "know" that it can happen (maybe even happened), but usually people agree that a fraud eye to eye is more difficult than an anonym thing over the internet! I do not agree with your second sentence and can only repeat that in my opinion an internet tourney is much more in danger of cheating than an event where people are facing each other!

Have a nice weekend
Ingo

The opposing issue is that internet tournaments attract _lots_ of participation due to reduced time required and zero cost to the particpants. WCCC is almost dead. It is on life support at the moment and the prognosis is not good if drastic action is not taken...

It's quite evident that something needs to be done. The WCCC should be the highlight of the tournament calendar. It should feature widespread participation from all ranks, all games should be broadcast live, etc.

Vas

I have participated in WCCC and WMCCC events where I would have been happy if they provided email results to us. In one case at a location in Paris where the average person could not even get _in_.

[bob]

Hello

The opposing issue is that internet tournaments attract _lots_ of participation due to reduced time required and zero cost to the particpants. WCCC is almost dead. It is on life support at the moment and the prognosis is not good if drastic action is not taken...

I cant and I will not argue against that as it is true - but what will happen with the valuation of a WC title if "strange" things happen? Just think about an accusation and the accused is not reacting anymore. Regardless if he will be thrown out or not the debate (here and elswhere) will never end! Just recently there was and still is a huge debate which cant be used as an example ...

I dont think that a "valuable computerchess tourney" should be held without the physical presence of the programers in one room and agree with Tord in the fact that beeing together with others in a tourney is much more fun.

Bye
Ingo

PS: There is absolutly NO doubt that a WC has to be covered on the internet nowaday in the best possible way to attract viewers!

What will happen if "strange things" happen? What about a WCCC title awarded because of operator intervention in a game? It has already had enough "strange things" happening, "strange decisions" happening, etc, to last a lifetime...