Because it is not a move generator programming contest.CRoberson wrote:Yes and that may be a good thing. If you can't code a legal move generator then why should you be allowed in?marcelk wrote: The assumption there is that forcing everyone to write their own move generator, SEE, SMP before they can add value is a good thing. You can also see it as a barrier that keeps new entrants out.
This tournaments is clearly dying in its current form. Without change of direction this tournament is over in a few years.
That would not be because computer chess innovation has stopped as the innovation is very well alive.
With the heavily improved derivatives the question is not that of possessing skill but choosing where to apply that skill to:
reinventing wheels or adding value.
We have seen that the latter is possible without necessarily doing the first. Great, then welcome those entrants please.
I agree with others that such change doesn't directly address some other core issues:
- unwillingness to attribute sources to begin with
- difficulty in enforcement (avoiding the 5-year delay in the Rybka fiasco)
- decline in interest to invest in tickets, hotel and time
- coverage. this is not a technical problem (games were broadcast live and reports followed quickly after each round), but a channeling problem (eg: even the organization's own website still showed the entry form instead of covering the events).
- missing of many of the strongest programs
Why not shake up the feathers here. "All open source" could be a fantastic starting point.The question becomes what should be in the jump start code. Such a rule is a bit of a problem due to erosion of the idea over time. Eventually, the jump start code would become something on the order of Rybka and that is going too far for now.
Get rid of rear mirrors and embrace the Internet age.
Re Don's question who of the participants suggested the discussion of an 'added value' rule set,
in public I can only remark that it was suggested by some of the top entrants and not by me.