Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:2 entrants by same author? Ahem...
I wish to hear all thoughts on this by all, so type them up. I want to hear reasoning not just "I don't like it".
I've exchanged much email with Allard about this. The programs are planned to be run by two different operators (Swami and Kenny). I've
warned Allard that both programs could be disqualified if there is any collaborative efforts during the tournament. That is to say one of them
losing to the other via manual intervention.
The rule has allowed me to enter Telepath (my current effort) and NoonianChess (my long halted effort). The two programs are
considerably different in every way especially strength. So, they are unlikely to be paired together. I even run them on very
disparate (speed) hardware. I've noticed that we get more entrants when I enter NoonianChess. It usually finishes near the bottom if not the bottom.
The rule was put in place to allow authors that are in a similar situation with me to enter two programs. Example: TheBaron used to be much stronger than CTD.
Spark is running in Olivier's openwar event. It seems weaker than Bright, but it is early in the event.
I think the idea is wrong. Else we should have fruit/toga/etc, glaurung/stockfish/etc, and the list goes on and on.
The idea has always been, in events I have participated in since the 70's, one program one author/group. Otherwise I could enter a Crafty, a "Blitz", a "OldCrafty" and so forth, which really makes no good sense, although it does improve my chances for finishing higer in the tournament with one of those.
hgm wrote:I have always entered with two engines, Joker and micro-Max, with entirely different goals. I don't see why any of them should be discriminated against just because they happen to have been written by the same author. Both are currently active projects. I would also very much like to see both Telepath and Noonian enter.
Here's the reason why it is a poor idea. You enter A and B. A is doing well, and in a later round, A is paired against B. It makes it quite easy to somehow handicap B so that A will win, which causes problems in a Swiss tournament.
Been there, seen it several times in the old WMCC events. It simply should not be allowed.
hgm wrote:If someone writes a completely different engine, and it is also very strong, it is only fair that he should have a better chance of winning. Why do people with only one engine think they are entitled to having the same chance?
Because allowing multiple programs from one author leads directly to opportunities to influence the final standings if the two are ever paired, which can certainly happen in a Swiss.
Of course a serious question that should be asked, is: what is considered "completely different"? If I would translate my C code into Pascal, it might give me completely different code, but it would be the same engine. If someone replaces the move generator of a mailbox engine by bitboard, without changing search or eval, it is the same engine. If there is a different extensions / reduction scheme, but the same evaluation, it is a different tuning of the same engine.
sje wrote:The oldtimers here will remember a microcomputer chess event of some decades ago that included a number of commercial entries where, in some rounds, two different machines from the same company were matched.
In one such instance, the nominally weaker (and less profitable) machine had a winning position against a supposedly stronger (and more profitable) machine from the same company. Instead of continuing the game in a normal manner, the company operators simply stopped relaying moves from the weaker machine and so the more expensive model "won" by time forfeit. It was not one of the shining moments of computer chess, and since then there has been a natural aversion to allowing multiple entries by the same author or company.
My permanent account at ICC is expired. I have to use the trial account, when I register, I get the pop up message box about whether I wanted to extend the days of usage or whether I wanted to become a permanent member. The options shown are "yes" or "quit". when I clicked on either of them in an hope to close the message pop up, winboard and chesspartner both exit.
I used to use Blitzin 2.7 to close this annoying message pop up of extending the trial account. Now Blitzin can't close this one anymore, it suggests that trial account users should use Dasher 1.3 or newer.
I downloaded Dasher, I'm able to login and the so-called message pop up about extending the membership payment account didn't appear. So I assumed Dasher solved this "message box" problem. Then I opened up Chesspartner, this message box again showed up. Opened up winboard to connect to ICC, the same problem appeared again. I can't get past this membership payment dialog box.
Can the TD get the account for me for the duration of the tournament?
Hi Allard,
I have a new updated opening book,much optimized and tweaked than the public one....are you interested
If yes,I can send it to you in a couple of days
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Of course I am interested!
(provided that no other participant uses the same book, ACCA rules do not allow it).
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Hi Allard,
I have a new updated opening book,much optimized and tweaked than the public one....are you interested
If yes,I can send it to you in a couple of days
Dr.D
