The Fate of Future WCCC's..??

[pijl]

Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.

No surprise that I disagree.
The WCCC is all about putting a show for the sponsor. And the sponsor (of the WCCC) does not care about the CCC audience. They target the chess audience. And they do not care about the hardware at all.

It is funny, but in the F1, which is often dragged in as an example of a hardware limited competition, a similar argument is being fought between the organisers and the teams. The organisers (FIA) want a cap on the team budgets, the teams that are organised in the FOTA do not want that.

Now I ask you: If the FIA gets its way, will it attract more spectators?
If the FOTA gets its way, will it attract less spectators?

I guess the answer on both questions should be no. So please, let the spectators out of the discussion. They are no party in this.

Now, where the comparison between F1 and chess goes wrong is that the majority of the costs of participating in the tournaments are not in the hardware. They are in the fees (for the commercials), travel, hotel costs, meals and whisky (at least for some teams ). And those costs are more or less equal for all teams.

Richard.

[bob]

I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?

Maybe a few didn't play anymore because they don't like what's happening with the event. Like the 8-core rule.

Organizations which only listen to happy customers usually don't last long.

You sound like you are not a happy customer although you will probably get a vote. I do not see why any reasonable person would object to 5 years. Why should those that do not play get a vote? Surely the event is primarily for the teams that can be bothered to turn up and pay the entry fees.

Dead wrong. The sole purpose of the ICGA is to foster computer chess development. Not to satisfy a small group of people that are willing to pay exhorbitant travel expenses, spend 2 weeks away from work, to play in an event that can barely draw enough participants to even be noticed. Your "elitist" approach will be the death of the WCCC. It is already effectively irrelevant since the internet tournaments have 5x the number of players and much stronger "players" already due to the no hardware limit. So forget about the new programmers, which will be the participants in 10 years, if the event is still around then. And make it better for those too lazy to use current hardware to provide maximum performance. Can't do it? Make it illegal for everyone else also...

[Harvey Williamson]

I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?

Maybe a few didn't play anymore because they don't like what's happening with the event. Like the 8-core rule.

Organizations which only listen to happy customers usually don't last long.

If you eliminate every thing that gets one negative vote, and convert that methodology into an algebraic equation, and take the limit of that equation as time advances toward infinity, you get "zero".

You are exactly correct. The World Champion should be the best in the world. It was in the case of chess 4.x on a Cyber 176 supercomputer, it was in the case of Belle on custom-designed machine, it was in the case of Cray Blitz on a multi-CPU supercomputer, it was in the case of deep thought with a bevy of custom-designed chess processors. "Best" means "best".

I always find it funny when 2 years ago GCP finished 2nd in Leiden before he had his Cluster that on his website he made the point that he lost to Cluster Rybka - it seems some will just go with the flow.

[Harvey Williamson]

Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.

No surprise that I disagree.
The WCCC is all about putting a show for the sponsor. And the sponsor (of the WCCC) does not care about the CCC audience. They target the chess audience. And they do not care about the hardware at all.

It is funny, but in the F1, which is often dragged in as an example of a hardware limited competition, a similar argument is being fought between the organisers and the teams. The organisers (FIA) want a cap on the team budgets, the teams that are organised in the FOTA do not want that.

Now I ask you: If the FIA gets its way, will it attract more spectators?
If the FOTA gets its way, will it attract less spectators?

I guess the answer on both questions should be no. So please, let the spectators out of the discussion. They are no party in this.

Now, where the comparison between F1 and chess goes wrong is that the majority of the costs of participating in the tournaments are not in the hardware. They are in the fees (for the commercials), travel, hotel costs, meals and whisky (at least for some teams ). And those costs are more or less equal for all teams.

Richard.

Richard,

We have some tome before the next WCCC - perhaps we can negotiate a deal regarding the whiskey?

Cheers,
Harvey

ps. I agree the sponsors could not care less about CCC. They only care about what is best for them - people on CCC will watch the event whatever - the sponsors want something more.

[bob]

Surely an unlimited use of hardware encourages larger hardware and not better search and eval?

No.

(If you want an explanation why, just look up the 100 other threads about this)

Please give us 100 links I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?

Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.

I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.

The other question is of course is the WCCC for those that shout on the forums or hopefully the wider Chess community and attracting new interest.

I haven't played for the following reasons:

(1) too expensive. The original ICCA charter stipulated that the WCCC events would be every 3 years, and alternate between Europe and North America. I pointed this out enough that someone decided that rather than abide by the original charter, they changed the charter to remove the phrase I kept bringing up. A _really_ lousy way of doing business, eh? But in any case, travel to exotic locations is expensive, particularly when the event went from the original 3-4 day event format to a 10 day or so format.

(2) too long. I teach. year round. I am not willing to take 2 weeks off from class to attend an event like this. When I participated regularly, I missed usually 2-3 days of work, max, because the event started on sat/sun to help with this problem.

(3) I participated in a couple by using an operator. Then a couple of years back the ICGA had the great idea of charging extra to an entrant that would use an operator. Since they didn't want such participation, I gave them what they wanted.

I participate in multiple CC events every year. Haven't missed a CCT or ACCA event yet. But claiming that only the ones participating recently should decide is a bit on the far side of reality. Those are the ones that will probably come no matter what. The event needs fixing so that _more_ will come. Not become exclusionary so that fewer show up. Some how you and others are missing that important point. If the intent is to take the WCCC and make it irrelevant, that goal is within reach now. Just keep making these ridiculous decisions and it will go beyond irrelevant to non-existent.

[pijl]

seems to be in the hands of the programmers themselves:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Steve

Sorry but it isn't. We were polled this year, but then told "it is too late to change it back" even though no one had voted to change it to 8-core-max in the first place. The ICGA will do what it wants, or what it is pressured to do by parties unknown.

And this is a poll again. Which means that formal voting rights don't count either. Any programmer that could have participated in a WCCC has a voice to be heard. They just did not receive the poll questions.
Richard.

[pijl]

We have some tome before the next WCCC - perhaps we can negotiate a deal regarding the whiskey?

Just bring more. I'll do the same. We were lucky last time with the portions of Cardhu served
Richard.

[Dirt]

seems to be in the hands of the programmers themselves:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Steve

the 3 options are in summary:

1. An adjustable upper limit to be regularly reviewed

2. Uniform hardware

3. Anything goes and the arms race continues.

If uniform hardware is the choice then I suggest the iPhone. Portable, no need to program for multiple processors, and relevant to a large number of people.

[Harvey Williamson]

seems to be in the hands of the programmers themselves:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Steve

the 3 options are in summary:

1. An adjustable upper limit to be regularly reviewed

2. Uniform hardware

3. Anything goes and the arms race continues.

If uniform hardware is the choice then I suggest the iPhone. Portable, no need to program for multiple processors, and relevant to a large number of people.

lol - fine by me - but seriously if there is uniform hardware you can still choose your OS.

[pedrox]

seems to be in the hands of the programmers themselves:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Steve

the 3 options are in summary:

1. An adjustable upper limit to be regularly reviewed

2. Uniform hardware

3. Anything goes and the arms race continues.

If uniform hardware is the choice then I suggest the iPhone. Portable, no need to program for multiple processors, and relevant to a large number of people.

I do not want to buy an iPhone and a Mac to get it programmed.