CCT: New rules for CCT Events #2

[garybelton]

No I'm not trolling, I hope you do offer to sell the book with H13, I'm just wondering why it cannot be made available to H12 uses, being as you say, it's old. Good day to you sir.

[bob]

Well, this is a clear choice by the organizers. It is a tournament for authors, not a tournament for programs. If the author can't be there, he can't be there, and he is out. We don't want his program, we want the author. If he cannot be there, having the program there is pointless.

Well, clearly we have different opinions on this. I will defer to what the majority wants. But I would point out that, as far as I know, none of the CCT events prior to CCT 12 had this rule in place.

You are quite right, it was never an issue before.

In discussing the rules for CCT12, it was overwhelmingly decided that people would prefer a "Team Member" or author present over just an operator.

Personally, I never liked the rule. It was what the majority of the previous entrants wanted, so it was added.

I would prefer the program play than not. Would I prefer an author be present? Of course, but in years past, we never really had too many issues with operators.

Peter

Even at the venerable ACM events in the 70's, we allowed operators. We always preferred authors attend, but we wanted the strongest players available in any case and each year we always had a couple that could not make it. It is a bit different online, of course, but an author ought to be able to at least pop in a couple of times. For me, while I was on most of CCT, we were starting at 12:00am, after I had been at the office all day Friday. By 4am or so I didn't have a lot to say.

[garybelton]

Also in the Shredder game (the only other loss for Komodo in the blitz) again with the black pieces the first move out of book was 15...Ngf6 which Rybka human gives as:

[-0.05] d=19 15...Ngf6 16.O–O O–O 17.Bc3 a5 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Nd7 20.Rad1 Rad8 21.f4 Nc5 22.Bd4 Rd7 23.Rd2 Rfd8 (0:01:15) 19115kN
[-0.04] d=18 15...Ngf6 16.O–O O–O 17.Bc3 Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 Nc5 22.Ne4 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rd8 24.Nxc5 Bxc5 (0:00:38) 8939kN
[-0.04] d=17 15...Ngf6 16.O–O O–O 17.Bc3 Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 a6 22.b3 b5 23.Qg4 (0:00:24) 5201kN
[-0.01] d=16 15...Ngf6 16.O–O O–O 17.Bc3 Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 a6 22.Rd4 (0:00:15) 3209kN
[-0.04] d=15 15...Ngf6 16.Ne5 O–O 17.O–O Nxe5 18.dxe5 Nd7 19.Bc3 Rad8 20.Rad1 a6 21.Rfe1 b5 (0:00:05) 812kN
[-0.06] d=14 15...Ngf6 16.Ne5 O–O 17.O–O Nxe5 18.dxe5 Nd7 19.Bc3 Rad8 20.Rad1 a6 21.Rfe1 (0:00:03) 331kN
[-0.02] d=13 15...Ngf6 16.Bc3 O–O 17.O–O Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 (0:00:02) 29kN
[-0.02] d=12 15...Ngf6 16.Bc3 O–O 17.O–O Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 (0:00:02) 20kN
[-0.02] d=11 15...Ngf6 16.Bc3 O–O 17.O–O Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 (0:00:02) 16kN
[-0.02] d=10 15...Ngf6 16.Bc3 O–O 17.O–O Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 (0:00:02) 9kN
[-0.02] d=9 15...Ngf6 16.Bc3 O–O 17.O–O Rad8 18.Rad1 Rfe8 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.Rfe1 (0:00:02) 8kN
[-0.01] d=8 15...Ngf6 16.O–O–O O–O 17.Kb1 Rad8 18.Bc3 (0:00:00) 0kN
[-0.01] d=7 15...Ngf6 16.O–O–O O–O 17.Kb1 Rad8 18.Bc3 (0:00:00) 0kN

So I don't see the comment that we lost while still in book as at all accurate. However I would say that in the Sjeng game it was the bookmakers (my) fault for not booking at least one more move. I don't like it when bookmakers say "the problem happened after we left book so it wasn't my fault", actually it is your fault because you didn't book deep enough lines to keep your engine out of trouble.

[michiguel]

It is unfair not to allow book public and allow to use databases of millions of games managed by a GUI like ChessBase to create a book and use an adapter of company Aquarium.

The engines of second and third division as well as not to have good opening books because usually good book creators are interested in powerful engines, they will be forced to use bad books created by their own programmers. Maybe too much work for a tournament, maybe this will make fewer entries.

Pedro

As an author of a non-top engine, I may prefer to face Jeroen Noomen only *once* in a tournament. Mostly, because it is extremely boring also to deal with the same book over and over again. Second, I do not think that having the burden to create your own book is a valid reason to allow multiplication of the same book in a tournament. It is part of the challenge! You can create a decent general automated book that will allow you to compete. For a non-top engine, the book is generally the least of the problems.

Miguel

CCRL and CEGT untested own books. Chesswar and Webc allow public books. Playing in the World Cup is allowed with a public book.

I understand that you want to play once against Jeroen Noomen, I also prefer to compete with books created by the programmers themselves, not with books created by specialists.

You do not want to compete against several engines using a public book of Jeroen Noomen but DanaSah next year will have to compete against several engines using your own tablebases. Endgames with tablebases are not bored?

Exactly my point! I always stated that Nalimov's EGTBs should be allowed for only one team, and Nalimov will be part of it. Why do you think I started to code my own TBs? I was not even planning to release them, but after some discussions about rules last year I realized that the EGTB issue is a completely lost cause. There is no way to come back. Most of the people got accustomed to the Nalimov EGTBs and find no reason to change. That created the other problem with the licensing. Not everybody had access to them (either for lack of permission or licensing issues). Then, after a brief exchange of emails with Dann Corbit and pondering the pros and cons, I decided to release them to alleviate the problem. If it is allowed to share code for EGTBs, then let's make them available for EVERYBODY. I would have preferred another scenario, but I am not dogmatic. The Gaviota TBs have a very permissive license, so if the tournament allows the Nalimov's to be shared, now you can fight back with Gaviota's. You do not even have to ask my permission, go ahead and use them.

BTW, endgames with TBs are bored but at least they finish in less than a second

But do I need to make an new opening book to play only in news CCT?

Pedro

Pedro, I am the wrong guy to ask that... I even prepared my own TBs...
my own book system, learning etc.

There is another issue here. If there is a specialist that prepares a book, that should be recognized making the person part of the team. If you cannot belong to more than one team, then you cannot be allowed to make books for more than one team.

Coming back to your original point, I do not think it matters whether the book is public or not. I think it matters that if the book is handmade by a person, then than person becomes part of your team. Using public collections of games not a problem (from my perspective).

This year was the first time I used a book prepared by another person, Carlos Pesce. It was very good because it left Gaviota on positions that suit it well. That did not stop Gaviota to mess up two endgames with poor king play. There are many more important things than books.

Having said all this, whatever it is decided, I will follow. I am just exposing my vision. As long as the rules are clear, I will adjust to them. but I will prefer that they are long term.

Miguel

[mhull]

There is another issue here. If there is a specialist that prepares a book, that should be recognized making the person part of the team. If you cannot belong to more than one team, then you cannot be allowed to make books for more than one team.

In the old days before computers, club players all had a copy of Horowitz. Even if they cooked up their own book lines and shared them with a few friends, it didn't seem to be an issue in tournaments which lines from which books were "in your memory".

Seems like the same issue is true with EGTBs, except that there is EGTB code (not just tables) that are shared by different teams (e.g. Nalimov code). I can see where that could be an issue, but not with the tables themselves.