Looks like Deep Sjeng wins cct12

[garybelton]

I believe that this Rybka v Rybka game is the root, but there will be a ton of Rybka v Rybka games that led to it, and some human theory that led to those.

[Event "3m + 0s, rated"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.11.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Psycotrance, Rybka 3 Gnome"]
[Black "Argentum, Rybka 3 I VII 13"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2725"]
[BlackElo "2710"]
[PlyCount "270"]
[EventDate "2009.12.31"]
[EventType "blitz"]

1. e4 {0} c5 {0.00/0 0} 2. Nf3 {0} d6 {0.00/0 0} 3. d4 {0} cxd4 {0.00/0 0} 4.
Nxd4 {0} Nf6 {0.00/0 0} 5. Nc3 {0} a6 {0.00/0 0} 6. Be3 {0} e6 {0.00/0 0} 7. f3
{0} b5 {0.00/0 0} 8. Qd2 {0} Nbd7 {0.00/0 0} 9. g4 {0} b4 {0.00/0 0} 10. Na4 {0
} h6 {0.00/0 0} 11. O-O-O {0} Ne5 {0.00/0 0} 12. Qxb4 {0} Bd7 {0.00/0 0} 13.
Bf4 {0} g5 {0.00/0 0} 14. Bd2 {0} Be7 {0.00/0 0} 15. h4 {0} Rb8 {0.00/0 0} 16.
Qa3 {0} gxh4 {0.00/0 0} 17. Bb4 {0} Qc7 {0.00/0 0} 18. Bxa6 {0} O-O {0.00/0 0}
19. Rxh4 {0} Bxa4 {0.00/0 0} 20. Qxa4 {0} Qb6 {0.00/0 0} 21. Bb5 {0} Nxe4 {0.
00/0 0} 22. Rh2 {0} Nxf3 {0.00/0 0} 23. Nxf3 {0} Ra8 {0.00/0 0} 24. Qb3 {0}
Qxb5 {0.00/0 0} 25. Re1 {0} Rxa2 {0.00/0 0} 26. Rxe4 {0} Ra1+ {0.00/0 0} 27.
Kd2 {0} Qf1 {0.00/0 0} 28. Rhe2 {0} Rb8 {0.00/0 0} 29. Qc3 {0} Rd1+ {0.00/0 0}
30. Ke3 {0} Bd8 {0.00/0 0} 31. Qc6 {0} Bb6+ {0.00/0 0} 32. Kf4 {0} Qh3 {0.00/0
0} 33. Bxd6 {0} h5 {0.00/0 0} 34. gxh5 {0} Rf1 {0.00/0 0} 35. Rb4 {0} Qh4+ {0.
00/0 0} 36. Ke5 {0} Qxh5+ {0.00/0 0} 37. Kf4 {0} Qh4+ {0.00/0 0} 38. Ke5 {0}
Qg3+ {0.00/0 0} 39. Rf4 {0} Qg7+ {0.00/0 0} 40. Ke4 {0} Qg6+ {0.00/0 0} 41. Ke5
{0} Rd1 {0.00/0 0} 42. Rxf7 {0} Rd5+ {0.00/0 0} 43. Qxd5 {0} Kxf7 {0.00/0 0}
44. Kf4 {0} Qf6+ {0.00/0 0} 45. Kg4 {0} exd5 {0.00/0 0} 46. Bxb8 {0} Bd8 {0.00/
0 0} 47. Be5 {0} Qa6 {-0.34/16 3} 48. Rh2 {0 (Cd4)} Qg6+ {-0.42/16 3} 49. Kf4 {
0} Ke6 {-0.44/17 7} 50. Re2 {5} Kd7 {-0.48/16 1} 51. c3 {4} Qd3 {-0.49/17 1}
52. Re3 {4} Qc2 {-0.55/17 0} 53. Bd4 {5} Bc7+ {-0.55/18 0} 54. Ne5+ {0} Kc8 {
-0.56/19 4} 55. b4 {0} Kb7 {-0.56/19 5} 56. Kg4 {0 (Rg5)} Qh7 {-0.56/17 1} 57.
Nd3 {5 (Rf3)} Qg6+ {-0.57/16 2} 58. Kf3 {1} Qh5+ {-0.56/17 2} 59. Kf2 {8} Qh2+
{-0.56/18 0} 60. Ke1 {5 (Rf1)} Qc2 {-0.56/16 3} 61. Nc5+ {3 (Tf3)} Kc6 {-0.55/
16 2} 62. Ne6 {0} Bb8 {-0.51/17 4} 63. Bf6 {0} Qg6 {-0.65/17 4} 64. Nd4+ {1}
Kd7 {-0.63/17 3} 65. Rf3 {1} Qg2 {-0.71/18 6} 66. Kd1 {0} Bh2 {-0.78/18 5} 67.
Bh4 {0} Be5 {-0.78/18 4} 68. Rf7+ {0} Kc8 {-0.78/19 6} 69. Bf2 {0} Qf1+ {-0.94/
18 3} 70. Kd2 {0 (Rc2)} Bg3 {-1.31/15 2} 71. Ke3 {2} Bh4 {-1.32/16 1} 72. Rf8+
{4 (Ce2)} Kd7 {-1.50/15 2} 73. Rf5 {2 (Tf7+)} Qc1+ {-1.32/14 0} 74. Kf3 {1}
Qxc3+ {-1.74/15 0} 75. Be3 {4} Qc4 {-1.74/17 0} 76. b5 {2} Be1 {-1.74/18 1} 77.
Kg4 {1} Bc3 {-1.74/18 1} 78. Rf7+ {2} Ke8 {-1.74/18 0} 79. Rf4 {1} Bxd4 {-1.74/
19 7} 80. Bxd4 {0} Qxb5 {-1.74/20 1} 81. Kg5 {1} Qd3 {-1.75/21 1} 82. Kf6 {3
(Th4)} Qg3 {-1.75/21 1} 83. Kf5 {2} Kd7 {-1.75/22 0} 84. Be5 {1 (Tg4)} Qe3 {-1.
75/21 2} 85. Bd4 {1} Qe6+ {-1.75/23 0} 86. Kg5 {0} Qg8+ {-1.75/23 0} 87. Kf5 {
2 (Rf6)} Qg2 {-1.75/23 2} 88. Rh4 {3} Qg3 {-1.75/22 0} 89. Rg4 {1 (Tf4)} Qf3+ {
-1.75/23 1} 90. Kg5 {0} Ke6 {-1.75/23 0} 91. Rf4 {1} Qg2+ {-1.75/24 0} 92. Kh4
{2 (Tg4)} Kd7 {-1.76/22 2} 93. Kh5 {5} Kc6 {-1.76/24 0} 94. Kh4 {2 (Tg4)} Kb5 {
-1.76/22 1} 95. Rg4 {1} Qd2 {-1.76/23 1} 96. Kh5 {0} Qe2 {-1.76/23 1} 97. Kg5 {
1} Qe7+ {-1.76/22 1} 98. Kf5 {1} Qd7+ {-1.76/23 1} 99. Kg5 {1} Kc4 {-1.76/22 1}
100. Be5+ {1} Kd3 {-1.76/23 1} 101. Rd4+ {1} Ke3 {-1.76/23 2} 102. Kf6 {0 (Tf4)
} Qb5 {-1.76/20 1} 103. Rh4 {1 (Tf4)} Qc6+ {-1.76/19 1} 104. Ke7 {1 (Rg5)} Qb6
{-1.76/18 1} 105. Rf4 {1} Qc5+ {-1.76/21 0} 106. Kf6 {2 (Re6)} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1
} 107. Ke7 {10 (Rg5)} Qb6 {-1.76/19 2} 108. Rh4 {2} Kd3 {-1.76/22 0} 109. Rf4 {
1} Qc5+ {-1.76/22 1} 110. Kf7 {1 (Re6)} Qc6 {-1.76/20 1} 111. Rb4 {0 (Td4+)}
Qd7+ {-1.76/17 1} 112. Kf6 {1} Kd2 {-1.76/19 2} 113. Rd4+ {0} Ke3 {-1.76/22 0}
114. Rf4 {0} Qe8 {-1.76/22 1} 115. Rd4 {0 (Rf5)} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1} 116. Kf7 {
1 (Rf5)} Qc5 {-1.76/20 1} 117. Rh4 {3 (Tf4)} Kf3 {-1.76/19 1} 118. Rf4+ {1} Ke2
{-1.76/21 1} 119. Ke6 {1} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1} 120. Ke7 {0 (Rf5)} Kd2 {-1.76/19 1}
121. Rd4+ {1} Ke1 {-1.76/20 0} 122. Rh4 {1 (Rf7)} Kd1 {-1.76/18 1} 123. Rd4+ {
1 (Ad4)} Ke2 {0.00/19 9} 124. Rf4 {0} Kd3 {-1.76/19 7} 125. Rd4+ {1} Kc2 {0.00/
22 0} 126. Bf6 {1} Qc7+ {0.00/22 1} 127. Ke6 {0} Qc8+ {0.00/24 0} 128. Ke5 {0
(Rxd5)} Kc3 {0.00/21 1} 129. Rxd5 {0 (Td1)} Kb3 {0} 130. Rd4 {0} Qc7+ {0} 131.
Rd6 {0} Ka2 {0} 132. Kd5 {0} Ka3 {0} 133. Ra6+ {0} Kb4 {0} 134. Ra1 {0} Qa5+ {0
} 135. Rxa5 {0} Kxa5 {0 (Lag: Av=0.79s, max=3.5s)} 1/2-1/2

[M ANSARI]

I believe that this Rybka v Rybka game is the root, but there will be a ton of Rybka v Rybka games that led to it, and some human theory that led to those.

[Event "3m + 0s, rated"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.11.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Psycotrance, Rybka 3 Gnome"]
[Black "Argentum, Rybka 3 I VII 13"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2725"]
[BlackElo "2710"]
[PlyCount "270"]
[EventDate "2009.12.31"]
[EventType "blitz"]

1. e4 {0} c5 {0.00/0 0} 2. Nf3 {0} d6 {0.00/0 0} 3. d4 {0} cxd4 {0.00/0 0} 4.
Nxd4 {0} Nf6 {0.00/0 0} 5. Nc3 {0} a6 {0.00/0 0} 6. Be3 {0} e6 {0.00/0 0} 7. f3
{0} b5 {0.00/0 0} 8. Qd2 {0} Nbd7 {0.00/0 0} 9. g4 {0} b4 {0.00/0 0} 10. Na4 {0
} h6 {0.00/0 0} 11. O-O-O {0} Ne5 {0.00/0 0} 12. Qxb4 {0} Bd7 {0.00/0 0} 13.
Bf4 {0} g5 {0.00/0 0} 14. Bd2 {0} Be7 {0.00/0 0} 15. h4 {0} Rb8 {0.00/0 0} 16.
Qa3 {0} gxh4 {0.00/0 0} 17. Bb4 {0} Qc7 {0.00/0 0} 18. Bxa6 {0} O-O {0.00/0 0}
19. Rxh4 {0} Bxa4 {0.00/0 0} 20. Qxa4 {0} Qb6 {0.00/0 0} 21. Bb5 {0} Nxe4 {0.
00/0 0} 22. Rh2 {0} Nxf3 {0.00/0 0} 23. Nxf3 {0} Ra8 {0.00/0 0} 24. Qb3 {0}
Qxb5 {0.00/0 0} 25. Re1 {0} Rxa2 {0.00/0 0} 26. Rxe4 {0} Ra1+ {0.00/0 0} 27.
Kd2 {0} Qf1 {0.00/0 0} 28. Rhe2 {0} Rb8 {0.00/0 0} 29. Qc3 {0} Rd1+ {0.00/0 0}
30. Ke3 {0} Bd8 {0.00/0 0} 31. Qc6 {0} Bb6+ {0.00/0 0} 32. Kf4 {0} Qh3 {0.00/0
0} 33. Bxd6 {0} h5 {0.00/0 0} 34. gxh5 {0} Rf1 {0.00/0 0} 35. Rb4 {0} Qh4+ {0.
00/0 0} 36. Ke5 {0} Qxh5+ {0.00/0 0} 37. Kf4 {0} Qh4+ {0.00/0 0} 38. Ke5 {0}
Qg3+ {0.00/0 0} 39. Rf4 {0} Qg7+ {0.00/0 0} 40. Ke4 {0} Qg6+ {0.00/0 0} 41. Ke5
{0} Rd1 {0.00/0 0} 42. Rxf7 {0} Rd5+ {0.00/0 0} 43. Qxd5 {0} Kxf7 {0.00/0 0}
44. Kf4 {0} Qf6+ {0.00/0 0} 45. Kg4 {0} exd5 {0.00/0 0} 46. Bxb8 {0} Bd8 {0.00/
0 0} 47. Be5 {0} Qa6 {-0.34/16 3} 48. Rh2 {0 (Cd4)} Qg6+ {-0.42/16 3} 49. Kf4 {
0} Ke6 {-0.44/17 7} 50. Re2 {5} Kd7 {-0.48/16 1} 51. c3 {4} Qd3 {-0.49/17 1}
52. Re3 {4} Qc2 {-0.55/17 0} 53. Bd4 {5} Bc7+ {-0.55/18 0} 54. Ne5+ {0} Kc8 {
-0.56/19 4} 55. b4 {0} Kb7 {-0.56/19 5} 56. Kg4 {0 (Rg5)} Qh7 {-0.56/17 1} 57.
Nd3 {5 (Rf3)} Qg6+ {-0.57/16 2} 58. Kf3 {1} Qh5+ {-0.56/17 2} 59. Kf2 {8} Qh2+
{-0.56/18 0} 60. Ke1 {5 (Rf1)} Qc2 {-0.56/16 3} 61. Nc5+ {3 (Tf3)} Kc6 {-0.55/
16 2} 62. Ne6 {0} Bb8 {-0.51/17 4} 63. Bf6 {0} Qg6 {-0.65/17 4} 64. Nd4+ {1}
Kd7 {-0.63/17 3} 65. Rf3 {1} Qg2 {-0.71/18 6} 66. Kd1 {0} Bh2 {-0.78/18 5} 67.
Bh4 {0} Be5 {-0.78/18 4} 68. Rf7+ {0} Kc8 {-0.78/19 6} 69. Bf2 {0} Qf1+ {-0.94/
18 3} 70. Kd2 {0 (Rc2)} Bg3 {-1.31/15 2} 71. Ke3 {2} Bh4 {-1.32/16 1} 72. Rf8+
{4 (Ce2)} Kd7 {-1.50/15 2} 73. Rf5 {2 (Tf7+)} Qc1+ {-1.32/14 0} 74. Kf3 {1}
Qxc3+ {-1.74/15 0} 75. Be3 {4} Qc4 {-1.74/17 0} 76. b5 {2} Be1 {-1.74/18 1} 77.
Kg4 {1} Bc3 {-1.74/18 1} 78. Rf7+ {2} Ke8 {-1.74/18 0} 79. Rf4 {1} Bxd4 {-1.74/
19 7} 80. Bxd4 {0} Qxb5 {-1.74/20 1} 81. Kg5 {1} Qd3 {-1.75/21 1} 82. Kf6 {3
(Th4)} Qg3 {-1.75/21 1} 83. Kf5 {2} Kd7 {-1.75/22 0} 84. Be5 {1 (Tg4)} Qe3 {-1.
75/21 2} 85. Bd4 {1} Qe6+ {-1.75/23 0} 86. Kg5 {0} Qg8+ {-1.75/23 0} 87. Kf5 {
2 (Rf6)} Qg2 {-1.75/23 2} 88. Rh4 {3} Qg3 {-1.75/22 0} 89. Rg4 {1 (Tf4)} Qf3+ {
-1.75/23 1} 90. Kg5 {0} Ke6 {-1.75/23 0} 91. Rf4 {1} Qg2+ {-1.75/24 0} 92. Kh4
{2 (Tg4)} Kd7 {-1.76/22 2} 93. Kh5 {5} Kc6 {-1.76/24 0} 94. Kh4 {2 (Tg4)} Kb5 {
-1.76/22 1} 95. Rg4 {1} Qd2 {-1.76/23 1} 96. Kh5 {0} Qe2 {-1.76/23 1} 97. Kg5 {
1} Qe7+ {-1.76/22 1} 98. Kf5 {1} Qd7+ {-1.76/23 1} 99. Kg5 {1} Kc4 {-1.76/22 1}
100. Be5+ {1} Kd3 {-1.76/23 1} 101. Rd4+ {1} Ke3 {-1.76/23 2} 102. Kf6 {0 (Tf4)
} Qb5 {-1.76/20 1} 103. Rh4 {1 (Tf4)} Qc6+ {-1.76/19 1} 104. Ke7 {1 (Rg5)} Qb6
{-1.76/18 1} 105. Rf4 {1} Qc5+ {-1.76/21 0} 106. Kf6 {2 (Re6)} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1
} 107. Ke7 {10 (Rg5)} Qb6 {-1.76/19 2} 108. Rh4 {2} Kd3 {-1.76/22 0} 109. Rf4 {
1} Qc5+ {-1.76/22 1} 110. Kf7 {1 (Re6)} Qc6 {-1.76/20 1} 111. Rb4 {0 (Td4+)}
Qd7+ {-1.76/17 1} 112. Kf6 {1} Kd2 {-1.76/19 2} 113. Rd4+ {0} Ke3 {-1.76/22 0}
114. Rf4 {0} Qe8 {-1.76/22 1} 115. Rd4 {0 (Rf5)} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1} 116. Kf7 {
1 (Rf5)} Qc5 {-1.76/20 1} 117. Rh4 {3 (Tf4)} Kf3 {-1.76/19 1} 118. Rf4+ {1} Ke2
{-1.76/21 1} 119. Ke6 {1} Qc6+ {-1.76/21 1} 120. Ke7 {0 (Rf5)} Kd2 {-1.76/19 1}
121. Rd4+ {1} Ke1 {-1.76/20 0} 122. Rh4 {1 (Rf7)} Kd1 {-1.76/18 1} 123. Rd4+ {
1 (Ad4)} Ke2 {0.00/19 9} 124. Rf4 {0} Kd3 {-1.76/19 7} 125. Rd4+ {1} Kc2 {0.00/
22 0} 126. Bf6 {1} Qc7+ {0.00/22 1} 127. Ke6 {0} Qc8+ {0.00/24 0} 128. Ke5 {0
(Rxd5)} Kc3 {0.00/21 1} 129. Rxd5 {0 (Td1)} Kb3 {0} 130. Rd4 {0} Qc7+ {0} 131.
Rd6 {0} Ka2 {0} 132. Kd5 {0} Ka3 {0} 133. Ra6+ {0} Kb4 {0} 134. Ra1 {0} Qa5+ {0
} 135. Rxa5 {0} Kxa5 {0 (Lag: Av=0.79s, max=3.5s)} 1/2-1/2

This is actually a well known book line on Playchess. In such a sharp line any small deviation from the thoroughly tested line can mean immediate disaster.

[garybelton]

Yes I'm not surprised, well we saw Playchess theory come to CCT last weekend and it was not very interesting for the fans.

The best non-emotional/non-that's-how-we've-always-done-it argument against limiting a book to a certain number of moves is that some openings need more moves that others. What is really needed is something like the "import up to ECO length" .. so there must be a list of ECO's somewhere. It would be good if CCT books could have only have moves up to the ECO lengths, the TD could keep a master ECO list and anyone going over it would be penalized. At the end of the day though this is a programmers tournament and they'll decide what they want, until the long book line draw death forces them to rethink.

[Don]

Don - you probably don't know me but I have read your interview posted some time ago with a lot of interest and pleasure, and I have the utmost respect to you and GM Kaufman. In addition the emergence of Komodo and the performance it shows on a single core is very promising and exciting for us computer-chess fans. Consider me a very likely future customer when your commercial multi-processors version is out for sale.

I must say though that regarding cct12, from what has been presented so far, your decision to claim a win over Junior disconnect surprised me. Yes, it does seem unsportsmanlike. While you don't owe anyone an explanation, I think the onus is on you to clear the story on this, if you care about the general perception at all, that is.

If you have other facts that you can not disclose in order not to attack other players it's understood. I just wanted to share with you that your decision to claim a win over disconnect (even if the rules allowed that) wasn't something I and I guess many others expected to see. I prefer settling things on the board. If you were worried Junior was cheating post their disconnect (maybe that's what your comment about Junior not reporting scores was about) that's a different argument - but would appear unlikely if Junior wasn't even able to mate a lone king vs. two rooks.

Again, with the utmost respect to your work.

HEM

The ending draw happened in seconds once there were only the 2 rooks and kings were on the board. It happened so fast there would not have been much time to react and by the time the mate was seen, both programs were playing almost instantly and it was over in 2 or 3 seconds.

But I don't really know that anything improper happened on their part. I know they disconnected for almost 10 minutes (not the "just over 5 minutes" that was incorrectly reported) in the most critical position of the game and as soon as they came back up their program suddenly starting playing decisively and without kibitz or reporting of any kind.

When they went off-line I started analyzing the move that was in the PV and Komodo believed that we would have a nice advantage if this move had been played. Even though Komodo is hundreds of ELO stronger than I am, I expected to lose the game because our king-side looked pretty weak. So now Junior comes back on line and without any reporting of any kinds plays several moves quickly and decisively and not the same moves expected and no logs of any kind or any way of verifying Juniors thinking. I asked the TD to request the logs from Junior and was not answered on this. None of this seemed right to me.

I'm not saying anything improper happened, but I was pretty annoyed about how it all went down with no possible chance of verification and for several minutes I felt I was being ignored by the TD who would not respond to me. I think that he was probably just very busy.

When the TD did get back to me (someone else requested that he should do so) I felt like I had to fight to get treated fairly on this. I should have been able to say that "here are YOUR rules, they were violated, and I claim the win." I should not be chastised in any way for this or made to feel guilty for this. In fact, I thinks it's dead wrong because rules like this are designed to ADD stability and certainty to a tournament, not to detract from this. Rules like this spell out what should happen in circumstances that the TD anticipates might happen and by censoring those who expect the rules to be fairly administered just undermines the stability of such events.

I had the right to claim the win and so I claimed it on this basis. I don't like what the TD said about me, but I do have a certain measure of respect for him for doing the right thing and he did not let his own personal bias stand in the way. That is how a tournament director should be. In addition the TD should have respect for the rules of the tournament, but in this case the TD called me a bad sport because I wanted him to enforce a rule. I didn't know there was an unspoken rule that this rule is not supposed to actually be enforced. Then why is that rule there?

Let me say one more thing about Junior. The only one on that team that I really know much about is Amir Ban. I don't have any reason to believe that he would do anything unethical and he seems like a reasonable person to me. He was once a moderator with me and Bruce and I thought he did a better job than I did and he was fair minded. And I don't see him or the Junior team complaining either. I don't know who operated Junior or what happened on the other end - I was not there. One scenario is that they lost the connection at the critical point in the game (according to Murphy's law that is the most likely time), it took them about 10 minutes to come back up and the program was thinking the entire time and filling it's hash table. In the panic caused by the disconnect they forgot to turn on Kibitz mode and thus Juniors thinking process was hidden from our view. The program may not have had logging turned on (in Komodo it was probably off too) and everything that transpired can be reasonably explained. It's not right to accuse them of anything and I don't, but I am annoyed about how it all went down. I'm also annoyed that the "actual" rules are not spelled out and that arbitrary rules are in place that you are not supposed to actually make use of without taking a lot of heat.

[Highendman]

Don - thanks for taking the time to answer.

Fwiw, all clear from my end, not that you needed any approval from me.

It's good to see that even great chess programmer are human - in the perspective you put things it's easy to sense the frustration you felt (by the TD seeming to ignore you and your concern that some foul play may be happening) and it does seem like more reasonable conduct than what had initially appeared to be you popping out of the blue and claiming a win after the fact for a technical reason.

Obviously that's why there are rules in place and a TD to interpret them and act on them within the time constraints of an event. Should I ever get to sponsor an event like this (I see that happening one day) it gives more emphasis to having clear rules. I wouldn't have ruled a win in disconnect as a TD (nor had such a clear cut rule in place to begin with) - anyway not for a 10 minutes incident. While I would have ruled a win against any program that did not kibitz it's eval no matter the circumstances - time enough was given to the participants to prepare for this.

Anyway best of luck with your future work on your program - looking forward to buying it when it's ready for sale.

[Don]

Don - thanks for taking the time to answer.

Fwiw, all clear from my end, not that you needed any approval from me.

It's good to see that even great chess programmer are human - in the perspective you put things it's easy to sense the frustration you felt (by the TD seeming to ignore you and your concern that some foul play may be happening) and it does seem like more reasonable conduct than what had initially appeared to be you popping out of the blue and claiming a win after the fact for a technical reason.

Obviously that's why there are rules in place and a TD to interpret them and act on them within the time constraints of an event. Should I ever get to sponsor an event like this (I see that happening one day) it gives more emphasis to having clear rules. I wouldn't have ruled a win in disconnect as a TD (nor had such a clear cut rule in place to begin with) - anyway not for a 10 minutes incident. While I would have ruled a win against any program that did not kibitz it's eval no matter the circumstances - time enough was given to the participants to prepare for this.

Anyway best of luck with your future work on your program - looking forward to buying it when it's ready for sale.

I personally believe that this rule should not have to be "enforced" or claimed by the participants. It should not a be a rule that your opponent must enforce against you, that already turns it into a adversarial situation. Instead the TD who made the rule should be aware when a player times disconnects and HE is the one that should make the call. And if the TD really thinks 10 minutes is not reasonable he should have the good sense to stipulate some other value instead of blaming the person who reminded him of his own rule. That's the part of this that really annoys me.

It's even better in my opinion if the server is capable of this to make it automatic. In such a case the rule is very simple, no disconnect rule, your clock just continues to run and the patience of your opponent and the other participants is not put to the test.

[Harvey Williamson]

It's even better in my opinion if the server is capable of this to make it automatic. In such a case the rule is very simple, no disconnect rule, your clock just continues to run and the patience of your opponent and the other participants is not put to the test.

That would be the best solution.

[Aaron Becker]

I personally believe that this rule should not have to be "enforced" or claimed by the participants. It should not a be a rule that your opponent must enforce against you, that already turns it into a adversarial situation. Instead the TD who made the rule should be aware when a player times disconnects and HE is the one that should make the call. And if the TD really thinks 10 minutes is not reasonable he should have the good sense to stipulate some other value instead of blaming the person who reminded him of his own rule. That's the part of this that really annoys me.

It's even better in my opinion if the server is capable of this to make it automatic. In such a case the rule is very simple, no disconnect rule, your clock just continues to run and the patience of your opponent and the other participants is not put to the test.

I agree completely on both of these points. Discussions amongst the participants during the competition about when and how to enforce the rules are corrosive and will inevitably lead to problems. I'm not sure the running clock solution is feasible with current software, but to my mind it's clearly a superior solution to the current rules if it can be enacted.

[Suj]

Thanks Peter for the great tourney.

After the tourney we always end up with a few criticism of a few players or amendments to the rules but there is no mention of the positives from the back of the tourney.

On that note I,on behalf of the Sjeng team would like to thank all co-competitors and Peter for voting to play blitz 5/3 which the cluster was tested at.

So there is still sportmanship left and its not always we have to win at any cost!!

Secondly a brief report on the whole tourney in the absence of GCP.
We ran Erdo's book the first 2 rounds and had a few problems with the aquarium book adapter both R1 and R2 red moves were played and we were lucky we escaped with a draw vs Diep.

This game I knew Diep wasnt kibitzing but when I was asking Erdo he was giving me diep evals.I had to inform Peter about it but left it at that.

After this round we had to change books to a test book from myself hoping it didnt play red moves and of course it didnt....

I wouldnt go into the rest of the games but the hiarcs game was deep in book but remember the fact this was more of a test book rather than a proper prepared tourney book as we did not have any other choice nor the time to do one just during the tour.

Keeping this in mind the cluster did play some strong games the ones vs shredder and gives a direct indication of the its hardware and engine strength due to the efforts put in by GCP.

I would like to thank GCP for letting me operate Sjeng in this tourney and thank you once again Peter for organising this great tourney.

Lastly I would like to thank Erdo,Jens and Bert for all their efforts from testing, book making to make this a memorable win for Sjeng.

[Suj]

As some friends requested the cluster configuration for this tour...

50/3 was 24x3(8431 amd opteron 24 core 2.4ghz) x3 machines +1x w5590 (intel nehalem 3.33ghz)

5/3 -24x2+8x1 .

We went with the safe option as more core cluster was giving us more draws than wins and GCP did give a new version to improve cluster efficiency but this wasnt used as we didnt have time to test it prior to the tourney start and hence went with a slightly older version.