ICGA Forum

[Rémi Coulom]

Hi,

In my discussion with David Levy about the 8-core limit, I told him that it is not healthy if the debate is in private e-mails between him and programmers. I offered to host a forum for a more open discussion of topics related to the ICGA. He welcomed the proposition, and mentioned it in his second letter. He will probably announce the forum soon in a mail to ICGA members.

I would like to invite all programmers interested in discussing the hardware limit to join there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/phpBB3/
There are plans to improve the URL of that forum. It seems that some discussions are more urgent than a change of URL, so I decided to announce the forum immediately.

I am planning to follow discussions there, and make a summary. It would be nice to come up with a document that lists all the arguments for and against the limitation, and try to address practical aspects such as remote play.

The discussion starts there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... ?f=15&t=66
I hope that forum can help to improve communication between programmers and ICGA officials.

Rémi

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi,

In my discussion with David Levy about the 8-core limit, I told him that it is not healthy if the debate is in private e-mails between him and programmers. I offered to host a forum for a more open discussion of topics related to the ICGA. He welcomed the proposition, and mentioned it in his second letter. He will probably announce the forum soon in a mail to ICGA members.

I would like to invite all programmers interested in discussing the hardware limit to join there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/phpBB3/
There are plans to improve the URL of that forum. It seems that some discussions are more urgent than a change of URL, so I decided to announce the forum immediately.

I am planning to follow discussions there, and make a summary. It would be nice to come up with a document that lists all the arguments for and against the limitation, and try to address practical aspects such as remote play.

The discussion starts there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... ?f=15&t=66
I hope that forum can help to improve communication between programmers and ICGA officials.

Rémi

Great proposal Rémi,it would be interesting to follow the debates
Still hoping for a new TCB regards ,
Dr.D

[Rémi Coulom]

Still hoping for a new TCB regards ,
Dr.D

I registered for the programmers tournament. So, I may work on a new version soon.

Rémi

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Still hoping for a new TCB regards ,
Dr.D

I registered for the programmers tournament. So, I may work on a new version soon.

Rémi

Great news Rémi
Dreams do come true sometimes regards,
Dr.D

[Zach Wegner]

Since this thread is on the edge of falling off the page, I'd like to urge all programmers to please come to the forum and make your voice heard. It seems pretty obvious now that hardly any programmers are in favor of such a limit (7 against limit, 0 for). All those programmers who are against this limit--please drop by the forum. Even if you are for it, please make yourself known. It is essential that the ICGA knows how the programmers feel and that these decisions aren't made against their will, without even informing the Programmer's Representative (Remi).

I would like to thank Remi once again too, for doing the work to set up this forum.

[bob]

Hi,

In my discussion with David Levy about the 8-core limit, I told him that it is not healthy if the debate is in private e-mails between him and programmers. I offered to host a forum for a more open discussion of topics related to the ICGA. He welcomed the proposition, and mentioned it in his second letter. He will probably announce the forum soon in a mail to ICGA members.

I would like to invite all programmers interested in discussing the hardware limit to join there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/phpBB3/
There are plans to improve the URL of that forum. It seems that some discussions are more urgent than a change of URL, so I decided to announce the forum immediately.

I am planning to follow discussions there, and make a summary. It would be nice to come up with a document that lists all the arguments for and against the limitation, and try to address practical aspects such as remote play.

The discussion starts there:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... ?f=15&t=66
I hope that forum can help to improve communication between programmers and ICGA officials.

Rémi

Sorry, but this is _not_ what is needed. Who has the time to visit multiple chess fora to discuss the nearly defunct ICGA WCCC tournament rules? Programmers sent emails to Levy, including myself. I don't intend to waste a lot of time talking to someone that is not going to listen anyway. David can just as easily come _here_ and start a thread and get feedback, and it would be less inconvenient for everyone for the "one" to visit the "many" rather than for the "many" to go somewhere to visit the "one"...

[bob]

Since this thread is on the edge of falling off the page, I'd like to urge all programmers to please come to the forum and make your voice heard. It seems pretty obvious now that hardly any programmers are in favor of such a limit (7 against limit, 0 for). All those programmers who are against this limit--please drop by the forum. Even if you are for it, please make yourself known. It is essential that the ICGA knows how the programmers feel and that these decisions aren't made against their will, without even informing the Programmer's Representative (Remi).

I would like to thank Remi once again too, for doing the work to set up this forum.

I've already sent a long email to Levy about the rule change. It would make more sense for him to come here and get feedback rather than starting another forum limited solely to that topic.

[Spock]

This is the ridiculous bit:

In regard to the precise wording of the rules for 2009, the ICGA would
encourage you to discuss your thoughts on the details of the rule. This is
NOT an invitation to support or oppose the idea of 8-cores for 2009, since
that decision has alreday been made. It is invitation to help refine the
rule in a pracical and fair manner.

There is no reason AT ALL that the 2009 rules need to be set in stone NOW, there is plenty of time to act depending on the discussion. If they have time to refine and define it, they have time to ditch it and revert to the status-quo.

[bob]

This is the ridiculous bit:

In regard to the precise wording of the rules for 2009, the ICGA would
encourage you to discuss your thoughts on the details of the rule. This is
NOT an invitation to support or oppose the idea of 8-cores for 2009, since
that decision has alreday been made. It is invitation to help refine the
rule in a pracical and fair manner.

There is no reason AT ALL that the 2009 rules need to be set in stone NOW, there is plenty of time to act depending on the discussion. If they have time to refine and define it, they have time to ditch it and revert to the status-quo.

They want to destroy the WCCC. Let 'em have at it. We've seen absolutely horrible decisions made _during_ an event (letting an operator overrule a program, offer a draw when in a dead won position, etc) So the decision was made in a vacuum, and can't be changed? Just guarantees that I will not be playing in any future WCCC events at all, even through an operator as I have done in the past.

WCCC. May it RIP.

[Spock]

They want to destroy the WCCC. Let 'em have at it. We've seen absolutely horrible decisions made _during_ an event (letting an operator overrule a program, offer a draw when in a dead won position, etc) So the decision was made in a vacuum, and can't be changed? Just guarantees that I will not be playing in any future WCCC events at all, even through an operator as I have done in the past.

WCCC. May it RIP.

Agreed. However for the commercial engine authors, the possibility of using "world champion" in their marketing and web sites is far too important for them to boycott the event. So for those that do stand a chance of winning (and lets face it, with so few games it is a bit of a lottery anyway) I'd say they will still be there. You'll still see Rybka, Hiarcs for example