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

[CRoberson]

There seem to be several constraints that keep the WCCC as is which
many complain is too long and too expensive. From my previous post on
this topic, the public complained that the primary issue is the cost
incurred from a very long event.

The primary constraints that produce a long event are the number
of rounds, the time control, the blitz tournament and the awards
dinner/closing ceremonies. Having participated in this event in 2002, I can say don't
drop the dinner/ceremonies.

Also, many complain about the lack of internet coverage.

Here is an attempt at a solution:

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.

2, The event should still be a gathering event for the authors and
researchers to interact.

3. The event is still the same TC and number of rounds.

4. The blitz tournament stays.

Now, how to handle the length and expense.

The event could be a 2 part event. The first part would be the
first eight rounds. These rounds could be handled over a four day
period and be completely over the internet, so people enter from
home.

The second part would be the gathering part. It is still handled
over the internet as before but the participants are on site physically.
With only six rounds, the blitz event and closing ceremonies to
complete, it could be handled in 4 days. Or add a fifth day to handle
opening ceremonies and testing.

During the second half, the participants may opt to participate
online only. This could be perceived as a problem. Some may think
that nobody will show up physically. Drawing from my experience
in organizing the ACCA Pan American Computer Chess Championships,
it seems that about 1/3rd of the participants will
come to the gathering. From my experience with the ACCA
World Computer Rapid Chess Championships, there would be
around 45 partipants which implies 15 participants on site. This
doesn't seem much better than current turn out, but the the calibre
of the event and the reduced on site duration may bring out more.
On the other hand, the second half could require on site
participation which means to enter the first part you must commit
to attending the second part.

Some may think that the first half could be used as a qualifiier,
but I wouldn't want to limit the on site participation. If it were so,
then the travelers would get poor airline rates.

The biggest problem with this is which server to use. If a Playchess
type server is used then the winboard programs would need to use wb2uci and
the Xboard programs would have to use a second machine as a pass
through box (windows or mac). If an ICC type server is used then the
UCI programs are lacking a good solution - Polyglot, Chesspartner
Arena, Chess Assistant and others seem to be insufficient for the task.

No matter which sever type is used the participants shouldn't be
required to purchase an interface.

That is the main line of my proposal, what do you think?

[bob]

There seem to be several constraints that keep the WCCC as is which
many complain is too long and too expensive. From my previous post on
this topic, the public complained that the primary issue is the cost
incurred from a very long event.

The primary constraints that produce a long event are the number
of rounds, the time control, the blitz tournament and the awards
dinner/closing ceremonies. Having participated in this event in 2002, I can say don't
drop the dinner/ceremonies.

Also, many complain about the lack of internet coverage.

Here is an attempt at a solution:

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.

2, The event should still be a gathering event for the authors and
researchers to interact.

3. The event is still the same TC and number of rounds.

4. The blitz tournament stays.

Now, how to handle the length and expense.

The event could be a 2 part event. The first part would be the
first eight rounds. These rounds could be handled over a four day
period and be completely over the internet, so people enter from
home.

The second part would be the gathering part. It is still handled
over the internet as before but the participants are on site physically.
With only six rounds, the blitz event and closing ceremonies to
complete, it could be handled in 4 days. Or add a fifth day to handle
opening ceremonies and testing.

During the second half, the participants may opt to participate
online only. This could be perceived as a problem. Some may think
that nobody will show up physically. Drawing from my experience
in organizing the ACCA Pan American Computer Chess Championships,
it seems that about 1/3rd of the participants will
come to the gathering. From my experience with the ACCA
World Computer Rapid Chess Championships, there would be
around 45 partipants which implies 15 participants on site. This
doesn't seem much better than current turn out, but the the calibre
of the event and the reduced on site duration may bring out more.
On the other hand, the second half could require on site
participation which means to enter the first part you must commit
to attending the second part.

Some may think that the first half could be used as a qualifiier,
but I wouldn't want to limit the on site participation. If it were so,
then the travelers would get poor airline rates.

The biggest problem with this is which server to use. If a Playchess
type server is used then the winboard programs would need to use wb2uci and
the Xboard programs would have to use a second machine as a pass
through box (windows or mac). If an ICC type server is used then the
UCI programs are lacking a good solution - Polyglot, Chesspartner
Arena, Chess Assistant and others seem to be insufficient for the task.

No matter which sever type is used the participants shouldn't be
required to purchase an interface.

That is the main line of my proposal, what do you think?

I don't see the interface problem. I have played against Fritz, shredder, rybka, chessmaster, junior, fruit, toga on ICC just to name a few. Apparently they have a way to connect that works just fine. I've been after this change for 20+ years, to no avail. One can always dream up reasons why this won't work. Or one can be progressive and demand that it work. Who has not been able to play in a CCT, as an example??? Or an ACCA event?

The pairings could be handled to make this a more interesting event, while still keeping some suspense for the last half of the event. Seed the event, and then pair only the top half against the bottom half for the first 4-5 rounds. Then the second half of the event will mean more, although this will restrict the top half from playing a near round-robin.

In any case, with 16 players, we do not need 9-11 rounds. That is a total waste of time, money, and vacation leave...

You mentioned cost, but to me that is not the main consideratoin. Two weeks is impossible for me to take off from classes and attend a WCCC. They were most successful when we had the 5 round format so that it took 3 days or so to play the whole thing. They kept stretching it to turn it into a sort of pseudo-vacation, and ruined the participation as a result.

I think the event would be just fine if we divide it into two parts, and then don't even play the first half. 5 rounds is enough to get a clear first place with 32 participants, which is not very likely to show up. Even 6 could be done in 3 days. The blitz tournament is worthless and could be dropped for all I care... Or maybe restrict it to programs less than 2 years old or something to give the newbies a chance to win something and have some fun...

[Vasik Rajlich]

Good stuff! Running down the points:

1) The main thing from a participant point of view is to keep the event short and convenient (meaning: weekend-based). This could be voted on - we'd probably vote for something like 9 games over two consecutive weekends.

2) The main thing from a spectator & publicity point of view is to have all games broadcast live on the internet. Holding the event on a server takes care of this.

3) Allowing internet-only participants will almost certainly boost the participation and give you a better tournament. Some may not like this, but that's life in the 21st century.

4) It's easier logistically if all participants play all rounds. Preparations for this type of event are usually made a couple of months in advance.

5) Playchess vs ICC: PlayChess is more popular, but the PlayChess protocol is closed and commercial clients are required, while the ICC protocol is open and open-source clients like WinBoard can be used. You probably want to be as inclusive as possible here. For us, any server is fine. Our ICC guy Nick Carlin uses polyglot and tells me that there are no real problems there.

Best regards,
Vas

[bob]

Good stuff! Running down the points:

1) The main thing from a participant point of view is to keep the event short and convenient (meaning: weekend-based). This could be voted on - we'd probably vote for something like 9 games over two consecutive weekends.

2) The main thing from a spectator & publicity point of view is to have all games broadcast live on the internet. Holding the event on a server takes care of this.

3) Allowing internet-only participants will almost certainly boost the participation and give you a better tournament. Some may not like this, but that's life in the 21st century.

4) It's easier logistically if all participants play all rounds. Preparations for this type of event are usually made a couple of months in advance.

5) Playchess vs ICC: PlayChess is more popular, but the PlayChess protocol is closed and commercial clients are required, while the ICC protocol is open and open-source clients like WinBoard can be used. You probably want to be as inclusive as possible here. For us, any server is fine. Our ICC guy Nick Carlin uses polyglot and tells me that there are no real problems there.

Best regards,
Vas

All I can say is "Good luck with the ICGA folks." After the recent (and sudden) 8-core decision, their resistance for almost 30 years now to automate the move relay process and eliminate the human typing, not to mention some really strange tournament director decisions, I can't see this event changing. Nor surviving. And apparently no amount of discussion is going to change their minds on any of this. The event is too long, too expensive, and now too small...

[Tord Romstad]

5) Playchess vs ICC: PlayChess is more popular, but the PlayChess protocol is closed and commercial clients are required, while the ICC protocol is open and open-source clients like WinBoard can be used.

I think neither PlayChess nor ICC are acceptable for this. PlayChess is, as you point out, proprietary. The ICC protocol is open, but far too complicated, and both the protocol and the documentation is optimized for humans rather than for automated computer play. Reading the ICC docs and trying to find out just what you have to do to to connect your program is a horribly boring and frustrating experience. I tried it recently, but quickly gave up. It is true that there are free clients like Winboard/XBoard, but some of us don't use chess software written by someone else in official chess tournaments. If I ever participate in the WCCC, I will play with Glaurung, not with a Glaurung/XBoard hybrid.

I think designing a new protocol and setting up a server is the way to go.

Tord

[hgm]

Designing a new protocol sounds like a really bad idea.

The existing ICS protocol is actually very suitable; The handling of it only gets very complicated if you want to use all the features meant for human interaction. There is no reason for an engine to do that, if the only purpose is to play an automated game, it can pretty much ignore anything it receives.

The commands it needs to recognize are then just a hand full, all quite simple to parse. (Basicaly receiving a board+move+time, a game-start message, or sending a move.)

Your position on the Glaurung / XBoard hybrid does seem a bit extreme, though, and pretty much precludes any form of internet play. I am all for outlawing use of code from others that affects move decisions (such as EGTB or book code). But if software written by others is not allowed to relay your moves, you will of course also have to write your own TCP/IP stack, (preferably using an alternative protocol, of course), your own network-card driver, re-program your modem, etc. But of course you could not participate in an OTB tourney either, without rewriting your video-card driver, keyboard driver, USB driver, and re-programming the micro-controller chip in your keyboard or mouse.

Of cours everyone must do as he feels, but I don't think people that do not feel the same way should be bothered by this, through prescribing non-standard protocols where standard protocols and acceptable solutions using them already exist.

[IWB]

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!

[PauloSoare]

Good thread! Just woke up and I am pleased to read some of the major names of computer chess exchanging ideas on things that interest them and us.

[bob]

5) Playchess vs ICC: PlayChess is more popular, but the PlayChess protocol is closed and commercial clients are required, while the ICC protocol is open and open-source clients like WinBoard can be used.

I think neither PlayChess nor ICC are acceptable for this. PlayChess is, as you point out, proprietary. The ICC protocol is open, but far too complicated, and both the protocol and the documentation is optimized for humans rather than for automated computer play. Reading the ICC docs and trying to find out just what you have to do to to connect your program is a horribly boring and frustrating experience. I tried it recently, but quickly gave up. It is true that there are free clients like Winboard/XBoard, but some of us don't use chess software written by someone else in official chess tournaments. If I ever participate in the WCCC, I will play with Glaurung, not with a Glaurung/XBoard hybrid.

I think designing a new protocol and setting up a server is the way to go.

Tord

I don't follow this at all. Years ago Bruce Moreland and I started at the same time to develop a custom ICS (now ICC) interface. I had one working in two days of part-time coding. It is about 700 lines of C, uses the computer-interface "style 12" and works well. I wanted a mechanism to be able to "observe" a game, and use Crafty's "analysis mode" to provide commentary automatically as the game progressed, and xboard didn't provide that.

But one does not have to write ttheir own interface. I have not seen a commercial gui that won't connect to ICC. And then there is winboard/xboard which also does this perfectly...

This is the argument Levy and company have always used. "It is too hard." But it really isn't. ICC is the perfect choice. It works and has been working for 15+ years so that the server code is robust, and there is no development nor support needed. Xboard works perfectly and the protocol is not that complicated, particularly if one sticks to protocol version 1 which is perfectly acceptable to play games. Polyglot seems to be working as well to allow UCI programs to connect thru xboard/winboard...

It might take a _little_ work, but the benefits are huge compared to sticking with manual move relaying which is ridiculous for a "computer chess event" (emphasis on "computer").

[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.