CRoberson wrote:There hasn't been a one program per operator rule. The issue was when Allard would have two strong programs and you were going to operate one of
them and operate Stockfish (another very strong program). This situation would create many opportunities for teamwork which could manipulate
the tournament outcome.
So, I needed to adjust the rules to compensate for this problem which we have never had before.
Generally speaking, one operator can operate more than one program. However, at least one of the programs must be weak enough
so that this doesn't create potential for manipulating the tournament outcome.
The same rule will be in place for more than one program from the same author. However, I am going to allow Spark and Bright in
this tournament becuase Allard suggested a way to ensure there wouldn't be a problem. If Spark and Bright are paired against each other
(the bot handles this; not me or any other human), then the game will not be played and both will get 0 points for the round.
This is going off the deep end of the pool. Arbitrary rule changes are not the solution to the problem. One program per author/authors is the only real way to do this. Because once again, this kind of rule can distort the final results. What happens to people that play either of those two programs (but not both)? Their tie-break, changes if both get a zero.
I don't see any possible explanation for allowing more than one program per author that holds water. We can always keep gnuchess as a backup if we have an odd number. Allowing multiple programs per author, multiple programs with same book, etc, is (for me at least) going to turn this into a "not-so-interesting" event.
bob wrote:This is going off the deep end of the pool. Arbitrary rule changes are not the solution to the problem. One program per author/authors is the only real way to do this.
Except that is an arbitrary rule change. The rules have said that there are multiple entries allowed per author since the beginning.
A few pedantic corrections to the information on the participants list:
The engine name is "Stockfish", not "Stockfish-Glaurung". Perhaps "Stockfish-Glaurung" is just the ICC handle. This would be OK, of course.
Joona Kiiski and Marco Costalba should be listed as authors (as well as myself, of course), not just as team members.
It is not entirely true that Stockfish doesn't use any endgame tablebases or bitbases. It uses a single bitbase for KP vs K.
I'll operate it if you like Tord........(can I rename it too please?)
Christopher
Christopher,
If you can operate a program then Arasan, Twisted Logic, BugChess2 and Alaric are in need of operators. You can pick one of them.
Charles,
If I had wanted to operate any other "program" I would have said so......
I will consider only two programs other than Glaurung 2.7 (I hope you don't mind the name) and they are Arasan and BugChess because I know (and this is important) that if Olivier was going to operate them then I would consider that too.
bob wrote:This is going off the deep end of the pool. Arbitrary rule changes are not the solution to the problem. One program per author/authors is the only real way to do this.
Except that is an arbitrary rule change. The rules have said that there are multiple entries allowed per author since the beginning.
OK, if this event is going to be contrary to rules used in CCT and ICGA tournaments for many years, enjoy it. I don't have the time, nor the interest to get involved in the discussions that are going to result from this. We don't allow programmer B to copy programmer A's program, make a few changes, and then enter it. But we do allow programmer A to do the same and enter two programs?
Makes no sense. I suppose I can always wait until the next CCT event...
bob wrote:This is going off the deep end of the pool. Arbitrary rule changes are not the solution to the problem. One program per author/authors is the only real way to do this.
Except that is an arbitrary rule change. The rules have said that there are multiple entries allowed per author since the beginning.
OK, if this event is going to be contrary to rules used in CCT and ICGA tournaments for many years, enjoy it. I don't have the time, nor the interest to get involved in the discussions that are going to result from this. We don't allow programmer B to copy programmer A's program, make a few changes, and then enter it. But we do allow programmer A to do the same and enter two programs?
Makes no sense. I suppose I can always wait until the next CCT event...
Even the CCT allows one author to enter a second program. I and HGM have been doing it for the last two years. The only time its
been an issue is this year when an attempt was made to enter two programs at 3000+ Elo.
The rules clearly state that there has to be a significant difference, not just a minor tweak as you state here. That is why
I've made a clear statement that both Bright and Spark are not allowed in the event. (that statement is in another thread).
New data came out last night that much more clearly answered the question. Thus, either can enter but not both.
I may drop this rule and keep it at one program per author for future events.
