CRoberson wrote: So, I think there are 2 or more rules that need reconsidering and both rules are allowed in the CCT and ACCA events.
What is the point of reconsidering the rules, or in fact have any rules at all for future events, now it turns out that the rules are treated as a joke? This seems just pure misleading of prospective participants.
If you want to be honest, for next year's addition you should announce:
For this event you will be at the total mercy of the TD. He can impose any demand on you, nuke you whenever he wants, or do otherwise as he pleases, without having to observe any rules whatsoever. You will have to trust that he knows what is best, as he is a good guy.
Just a general comment having only recently been through a somewhat similar experience myself
i can imagine how Charles feels right about now
he is devoting his time for free to organize a computer chess event ..all for the pursuit and enjoyment of his hobby ..and for the enjoyment of others ..and now that there is a late breaking disagreement(with reasonable arguments ) he is being criticized from all sides of the debate
seems to me he is trying to keep everyone happy and come to a reasonable solution
why do these type of events always seem to erupt into raging controversies?
sje wrote:How about a new rule to be used for future events:
"Each program must be operated by its primary author, and no author may operate more than one program."
This works for me, and has worked well many times in the past.
Well what if the primary author is not available because he has a family? Or a family with special needs? I agree the operator should be someone who has a permanent relationship with the engine and knows about the engine and gives far more hours to the engine than they do the job that pays his salary. This is a rule I could accept.
sje wrote:How about a new rule to be used for future events:
"Each program must be operated by its primary author, and no author may operate more than one program."
This works for me, and has worked well many times in the past.
Well what if the primary author is not available because he has a family? Or a family with special needs? I agree the operator should be someone who has a permanent relationship with the engine and knows about the engine and gives far more hours to the engine than they do the job that pays his salary. This is a rule I could accept.
I understand your point; I've had to miss some CC events like a recent CCT because I'm somewhat disabled and am occasionally stuck in a hospital. The hospital has cable television for the patients, but no Internet connection.
We can can make up for the more restrictive rule in part by having more events, and by having greater use of automation.
sje wrote:How about a new rule to be used for future events:
"Each program must be operated by its primary author, and no author may operate more than one program."
This works for me, and has worked well many times in the past.
Well what if the primary author is not available because he has a family? Or a family with special needs? I agree the operator should be someone who has a permanent relationship with the engine and knows about the engine and gives far more hours to the engine than they do the job that pays his salary. This is a rule I could accept.
I understand your point; I've had to miss some CC events like a recent CCT because I'm somewhat disabled and am occasionally stuck in a hospital. The hospital has cable television for the patients, but no Internet connection.
We can can make up for the more restrictive rule in part by having more events, and by having greater use of automation.
Do whatever you guys want - this will ensure that engines like Hiarcs do not play any more. I am sure this will apply to Rybka also. Even though Rybka also always supply an operator that is 100% committed to the Rybka project.
Harvey Williamson wrote:Do whatever you guys want - this will ensure that engines like Hiarcs do not play any more. I am sure this will apply to Rybka also. Even though Rybka also always supply an operator that is 100% committed to the Rybka project.
Why can't we have a fully automated event without the need for operators? If such were possible, would you still object to participating?
Harvey Williamson wrote:Do whatever you guys want - this will ensure that engines like Hiarcs do not play any more. I am sure this will apply to Rybka also. Even though Rybka also always supply an operator that is 100% committed to the Rybka project.
Why can't we have a fully automated event without the need for operators? If such were possible, would you still object to participating?
Harvey Williamson wrote:Do whatever you guys want - this will ensure that engines like Hiarcs do not play any more. I am sure this will apply to Rybka also. Even though Rybka also always supply an operator that is 100% committed to the Rybka project.
Why can't we have a fully automated event without the need for operators? If such were possible, would you still object to participating?
Isn't that called SSDF?
SSDF only handles Winboard/Windows programs nowadays, doesn't it? Symbolic will never run on a Microsoft O/S.
Anyway, the SSDF doesn't allow for customized hardware, or for distributed processing.
