Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / New rules of the 7th CSS/PAL Freestyle Chess tournament
1
2
Poll
"engine only" mode is not allowed in the 7th CSS/PAL Freestyle tournament (Closed)
| Nice ! | 4 | 8% | |
| I do not like this rule ! | 38 | 75% | |
| neutral | 9 | 18% |
Hello !
In the 7th CSS/PAL Freestyle Chess tournament next week, engine mode and centaur mode will NOT be allowed !
I do not like this... If one does not have time to play on one of the five tournament days, thats a serious problem now. So I would suggest to allow every participant to play two games "engine only".
What are your opinions ?
Dennis Breder
In the 7th CSS/PAL Freestyle Chess tournament next week, engine mode and centaur mode will NOT be allowed !
I do not like this... If one does not have time to play on one of the five tournament days, thats a serious problem now. So I would suggest to allow every participant to play two games "engine only".
What are your opinions ?
Dennis Breder
![[se]](/mwf/v12/flags/se.png "Sweden")
I totally agree Dennis and thx for starting this thread.
My responsibility as a father will make this freestyle and also future ones, impossible to participate in. :-(
I need (as many others i think) to play at least some of them as pure engine.
This rule cant have been considered on a deeper level with listening to us players. Its strange and makes me Grrrrrrr!!!!! And i dont think that quality of the games and also the joy of the widespread of participants will get enhanced.
Regards
Bjorn
My responsibility as a father will make this freestyle and also future ones, impossible to participate in. :-(
I need (as many others i think) to play at least some of them as pure engine.
This rule cant have been considered on a deeper level with listening to us players. Its strange and makes me Grrrrrrr!!!!! And i dont think that quality of the games and also the joy of the widespread of participants will get enhanced.
Regards
Bjorn
![[cz]](/mwf/v12/flags/cz.png "Czech Republic")
Applying "no engine only" players rule will take away some of charm and spell of Freestyle. Some of its essence.
I'm against it, although I'm not an engine only player and I'm not using a Centaur mode.
I'm against it, although I'm not an engine only player and I'm not using a Centaur mode.
I very much agree with you!
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
can you still name that freestyle, if no engines are allowed? I don't think so :(
This is the worst thing that could have happened for Freestyle chess, i have mailed all the important parites involved with Freestlye including the sponser .......Not allowing Computer or Centaur is not the right thing to do......The rules we're simple, if you did not have the Updated Gui and your engine crashed, You lose , Very simple and to the point......Now they are penalizing all players for no known good reason...
And well the time control.....That is another joke....and is made to give humans more chances, That in my opinion was a very bad call from Arno...This will become a draw after draw after draw.....60+15 is plenty enough time.
I will 100% stand behind all Computer&Centaur players.....If you need any help with anything about this event please contact me anytime
richard.stickles@chessbase.com
Regards
Richard
And well the time control.....That is another joke....and is made to give humans more chances, That in my opinion was a very bad call from Arno...This will become a draw after draw after draw.....60+15 is plenty enough time.
I will 100% stand behind all Computer&Centaur players.....If you need any help with anything about this event please contact me anytime
richard.stickles@chessbase.com
Regards
Richard
Most people would probably agree that banning computer entries is a bad idea given that someone can still play exactly the same way by manually entering the moves. Banning centaur mode is really strange since this mode was actually developed for freestyle chess.
On the other hand, time controls fall into the personal preference category. Most will probably prefer 60-15 (I know I do), but an occasional experiment with another TC should be ok. I'm not sure there will be more draws in this event though. I'm thinking the small increase in draw percentage due to the longer TC will be balanced by a decrease due to more board confusion errors (due to players who would otherwise be using engine or centaur mode playing in human mode).
Regards,
Alan
On the other hand, time controls fall into the personal preference category. Most will probably prefer 60-15 (I know I do), but an occasional experiment with another TC should be ok. I'm not sure there will be more draws in this event though. I'm thinking the small increase in draw percentage due to the longer TC will be balanced by a decrease due to more board confusion errors (due to players who would otherwise be using engine or centaur mode playing in human mode).
Regards,
Alan
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Here's a toast to everyone who will fall victim to "board confusion errors"!
Hi Richard,
as you mentioned my name ("bad call from Arno"), please take note, that the new rules have been concluded without my approval. I reject any responsibilty for this last-minute coup und did even try to prevent it, but without success.
It's true, some months ago I did agree that automatic engine play could be restricted for serious technical reasons, but such a change should have been discussed and worked out in detail long before a tournament. At least it should have been declared in the rather late CSS announcement of 15th August.
As to the rule itself we could (and should) discuss this point on principle - I think I have strong arguments for a restriction of engine-only play and multi-accounts -, but I am always open to compromises, if this is the best way for our community and the idea of Freestyle.
To some other points. We never before even talked about disabling the centaur function. One week before a tournament this is quite confusing. A clear "njet!" from my side, though there might be good ways to live without the centaur function. It reminds me on throwing the lifeboats overboard without any needs.
Further on, I would have liked to read - expressis verbis -, that 90m+30s is just an experiment (as many people voted for such an experiment) and that only in case of success we could continue alternately with both formats, one time 60m+15s (and final), the other time 90m+30s (without final). I mean, 60m+15s is by no means off the board. I think, CSS will agree on this point, they just didn't say anything about it.
I feel sorry to see, that communication could work such badly after it had been quite successful for two years. Nevertheless I hope, we will have an interesting event and find some positive things in the 7th Freestyle Tournament. It would have been even more disturbing to cancel the tournament a few days before it should start.
After all, I hope, that Freestyle will recover with the 8th tournament on a more popular and more accepted level, and I think, PAL as the main sponsor will also keep an eye on this.
Kind regards,
Arno
as you mentioned my name ("bad call from Arno"), please take note, that the new rules have been concluded without my approval. I reject any responsibilty for this last-minute coup und did even try to prevent it, but without success.
It's true, some months ago I did agree that automatic engine play could be restricted for serious technical reasons, but such a change should have been discussed and worked out in detail long before a tournament. At least it should have been declared in the rather late CSS announcement of 15th August.
As to the rule itself we could (and should) discuss this point on principle - I think I have strong arguments for a restriction of engine-only play and multi-accounts -, but I am always open to compromises, if this is the best way for our community and the idea of Freestyle.
To some other points. We never before even talked about disabling the centaur function. One week before a tournament this is quite confusing. A clear "njet!" from my side, though there might be good ways to live without the centaur function. It reminds me on throwing the lifeboats overboard without any needs.
Further on, I would have liked to read - expressis verbis -, that 90m+30s is just an experiment (as many people voted for such an experiment) and that only in case of success we could continue alternately with both formats, one time 60m+15s (and final), the other time 90m+30s (without final). I mean, 60m+15s is by no means off the board. I think, CSS will agree on this point, they just didn't say anything about it.
I feel sorry to see, that communication could work such badly after it had been quite successful for two years. Nevertheless I hope, we will have an interesting event and find some positive things in the 7th Freestyle Tournament. It would have been even more disturbing to cancel the tournament a few days before it should start.
After all, I hope, that Freestyle will recover with the 8th tournament on a more popular and more accepted level, and I think, PAL as the main sponsor will also keep an eye on this.
Kind regards,
Arno
From your post it seems clear that the villains in this saga are central planning-minded bureaucrats making decisions based on half-baked notions. I suppose he who pays the piper gets to call the tune.
It is hard to figure out the hidden agenda of the tournament organizers. Something is motivating them to make decisions that diminish the popularity of the tournament, create friction, violate the spirit of Freestyle and serve no obvious beneficial purpose.
It is hard to figure out the hidden agenda of the tournament organizers. Something is motivating them to make decisions that diminish the popularity of the tournament, create friction, violate the spirit of Freestyle and serve no obvious beneficial purpose.
It seems likely that the organizer and/or sponsor are trying to make the tournament more GM friendly. This could certainly include making it more difficult for engine assisted and engine only players. We all know the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.
Its very possible that the organizers and/or sponsor has a very different idea than we would as to what constitutes a successful set of freestyle tournaments. They may consider it essential to have big name finalists and they may want to tie it in more closely with OTB chess. They may see this as an essential ingredient for freestyle chess.
This is all conjecture since there has been very little communication from the organizer/sponsor on their perception of the tournament and where they see it going. Without Arno's work, there would be almost no communication at all.
Alan
Its very possible that the organizers and/or sponsor has a very different idea than we would as to what constitutes a successful set of freestyle tournaments. They may consider it essential to have big name finalists and they may want to tie it in more closely with OTB chess. They may see this as an essential ingredient for freestyle chess.
This is all conjecture since there has been very little communication from the organizer/sponsor on their perception of the tournament and where they see it going. Without Arno's work, there would be almost no communication at all.
Alan
Your thoughts mirror mine. I actually wrote a much-longer e-mail expostulating this very theory you lay out but decided it was all speculation and best left unsaid. Nonetheless there is not much doubt the rule changes seem to hurt "nobodies" and seem to help people with OTB reputations. I don't want to suggest that anybody in particular is being singled out, but consider the remote possibility that my team were to win this thing. What would be the story-line? That people with no OTB skill or experience can handily defeat titled players who have been playing in OTB tournaments for 20+ years? Call it paranoia, but I can't believe such a headline would be welcomed because it is both counterintuitive and subversive toward the entrenched notion that the OTB human element adds a lot.
Same goes for anyone who is primarily or entirely a hardware-oriented entity. There is a heavy human bias against the "machine" in man-machine contests; if a machine-only entity beats the best that a centaur team can put out there goes the neighborhood, eh? Bet you anything if a GM were to win he would be given accolades, but if a machine-only were to win there would be grumbles about lucky breaks, flukes, statistical probabilities or outright manipulation. It is just human nature.
But I don't know for a fact that any of this is what directly or indirectly motivated the tournament organizers so all the above must be taken cum granus salis.
Same goes for anyone who is primarily or entirely a hardware-oriented entity. There is a heavy human bias against the "machine" in man-machine contests; if a machine-only entity beats the best that a centaur team can put out there goes the neighborhood, eh? Bet you anything if a GM were to win he would be given accolades, but if a machine-only were to win there would be grumbles about lucky breaks, flukes, statistical probabilities or outright manipulation. It is just human nature.
But I don't know for a fact that any of this is what directly or indirectly motivated the tournament organizers so all the above must be taken cum granus salis.
Machine-only is still possible, with the only difference that the operator has to care for the time consumption and has to decide when to move. What's certainly much less likely now is, that multi-accounts of the same player participate. I don't know if there were rumours or suspicions of multi-accounts, in the past.
I think it is a problem for this tournament that money (--> hardware power) has a big share of the success. But I am afraid nothing can be done about that. So, if NASA would decide to participate, they would only have to buy Rybka and hire one or two opening expert GMs (the like who were seconds of GMs preparing for a World Championship), and would undoubtely win with their supercomputers all the time. The GMs would guarantee solid playable variations without silly risks, and Rybka on the superiour hardware would do the rest (fast Rybka is stronger than slow Rybka). Of course, that would ruin the tournament...
I think it is a problem for this tournament that money (--> hardware power) has a big share of the success. But I am afraid nothing can be done about that. So, if NASA would decide to participate, they would only have to buy Rybka and hire one or two opening expert GMs (the like who were seconds of GMs preparing for a World Championship), and would undoubtely win with their supercomputers all the time. The GMs would guarantee solid playable variations without silly risks, and Rybka on the superiour hardware would do the rest (fast Rybka is stronger than slow Rybka). Of course, that would ruin the tournament...
One interesting tidbit from Arno's report was that there would be a 2700+ player involved and that he didn't know who it would be. From this I take it that the 2700+ player directly discussed potential participation with the organizer and/or sponsor. Its possible that this player had specific requirements regarding engine only use. Its also possible that he didn't, but that the organizer and/or sponsor wanted to do everything possible to ensure his success. All speculation of course.
Another angle is that the organizer and/or sponsor almost certainly want to establish a successful "brand" for freestyle chess, and usually the easiest way to do this is to piggyback on an already established brand, e.g. top OTB players that are already known to millions of people. So for example if the 2700+ player were to win, we both agree there would probably be a major publicity campaign to publicize the event (which has been very low key so far).
Regards,
Alan
Another angle is that the organizer and/or sponsor almost certainly want to establish a successful "brand" for freestyle chess, and usually the easiest way to do this is to piggyback on an already established brand, e.g. top OTB players that are already known to millions of people. So for example if the 2700+ player were to win, we both agree there would probably be a major publicity campaign to publicize the event (which has been very low key so far).
Regards,
Alan
I don't see why a 2700+ would object against engine-only. It makes no sense, because any participant can virtually play engine-only anyway, no matter if this particular mode is available or not. To ban the engine-only mode doesn't mean to ban engine-only moves.
(I assume that the decision has entirely technical reasons?)
(I assume that the decision has entirely technical reasons?)
We know that banning engine only and centaur mode will significantly reduce the number of engine only players (many of them are not entering the tournament), so if this was the objective it has already succeeded. Richard Stickles has said that he was not in favor of this move, and it wasn't proposed by Chessbase or by Arno. This makes a pretty strong case for this being instituted to reduce the influence of engine only players. The part about this being done to help titled players is speculation, but not wild speculation.
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
Why do you think it wasn't proposed by Chessbase?
Vas
Vas
Its speculation based on the following two items:
1) Engine and Centaur play to some degree tie the event to the Chessbase server. There are a few other servers that could provide similar capabilities, but at a minimum there would be issues with book format and a different user interface, and
2) I'm pretty sure that if this was a Chessbase idea, and if Richard knew it was a Chessbase idea, Richard wouldn't be bashing it on a public forum.
Regards,
Alan
1) Engine and Centaur play to some degree tie the event to the Chessbase server. There are a few other servers that could provide similar capabilities, but at a minimum there would be issues with book format and a different user interface, and
2) I'm pretty sure that if this was a Chessbase idea, and if Richard knew it was a Chessbase idea, Richard wouldn't be bashing it on a public forum.
Regards,
Alan
Alan,
I've noticed this before in other discussions - you are far too logical in ascribing motives. :) The most common planet-wide motive is "let's try something random".
Vas
I've noticed this before in other discussions - you are far too logical in ascribing motives. :) The most common planet-wide motive is "let's try something random".
Vas
I've come to the conclusion that you're right, because there aren't any plausible rationals left for this fiasco :-)
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Alan,
you might want to copy & paste the first half of your sentence, I bet it could come in handy later on :)
Vas
you might want to copy & paste the first half of your sentence, I bet it could come in handy later on :)
Vas
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
Hi Alan, actually I feel that hydra team wants to participate and win again but it needs Rybka's help here and there.
I have heard exactly what you are saying from an unnamed but usually credible source. That this super-GM wishes to remain totally anonymous...unless he wins. So for instance if you were to defeat him with your 1.b3 you'd never know the magnitude of your success, but if he put you down en route to a tournament win you could count on your defeat being studied and celebrated on TWIC. The deck is stacked against upstarts, let's face it. The only solution is to win every game in style.
Here are the peak ratings of players who have already openly played in these events:
Krasenkow 2702
Sasikiran 2700
Landa 2669
Nakamura 2664
McShane 2656
...
Vas
Krasenkow 2702
Sasikiran 2700
Landa 2669
Nakamura 2664
McShane 2656
...
Vas
Wow! I'm eagerly waiting to beat the 2700+ fellow. Any time control he asks is welcome....
My personal bet is that this is just a random decision without any really profound background.
Your general analysis is quite right, though. Originally, freestyle (or advanced) chess was invented so that humans could reduce their errors by checking their tactics with machines. The central role in this operation was to be the human and his chess skill. It is said that Kasparov invented this format and no doubt this is what he had in mind.
As it has turned out, the relationship between the humans and their engines is much more complicated. For the pair to be effective, the human simply must give a lot of scope to his machine. The human's proper role is to act as more of a handler and organizer. In addition, the skills needed to perform this are quite different from the skills needed to play unassisted chess. No doubt, this is an unpleasant and unwelcome surprise to many people.
Nevertheless, it's the reality, and for me it's a perfectly good one. The chess is extremely high-level, it's fun to play, it's fair, it gives scope to our thirst for competition - so, what's the problem?
Vas
Your general analysis is quite right, though. Originally, freestyle (or advanced) chess was invented so that humans could reduce their errors by checking their tactics with machines. The central role in this operation was to be the human and his chess skill. It is said that Kasparov invented this format and no doubt this is what he had in mind.
As it has turned out, the relationship between the humans and their engines is much more complicated. For the pair to be effective, the human simply must give a lot of scope to his machine. The human's proper role is to act as more of a handler and organizer. In addition, the skills needed to perform this are quite different from the skills needed to play unassisted chess. No doubt, this is an unpleasant and unwelcome surprise to many people.
Nevertheless, it's the reality, and for me it's a perfectly good one. The chess is extremely high-level, it's fun to play, it's fair, it gives scope to our thirst for competition - so, what's the problem?
Vas
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
I think the problem is, that many still consider Freestyle to be what it was when it was introduced the first time : "Anything goes" they said. So, when limiting "anything" it's not really freestyle anymore with the appeal it had. Just my view as an outsider.
"the skills needed to perform this are quite different from the skills needed to play unassisted chess" -- you understand us, Vas! And might I add, it is not just a different set of skills, but a completely different mind-set, as though you were trying to tackle chess as a scientific problem, not a game. From first move to last, you need to find the strongest move, or at any rate the move most likely to lead to success. An OTB player arrives at these conclusions one way, a computer chess player entirely another.
![[eu]](/mwf/v12/flags/eu.png "Europe")
I think this was not necessary if people were playing fair play. Not using multiple accounts, starting the tournament, and then quit them and play only with the one which had best score, thus ruining things like Buchholz score of other participants.
This is unfair practise and should be forbidden. As FIDE rules clearly says one person can play just one game at the same time. But probably people have been cheating and therefore there have been a need to fight with this, by implying a human mode, making this type of cheating much more difficult.
Personally, I have nothing against the necessity to apply moves by hand. This is a high level tournament and people who are really interested should try to find their time or at least a back up for a game or two. But I want to play as strong tournament as it is possible and would be unfortunate, if some people won't be able to participate because of previous involvements. Already paying starting fee, counting they can play some games in engine only mode, and been informed it is not possible just a week before the tournament!
Very unprofessional and I'm really disappointed by this, because it hasn't happened for the first time. My wishes goes to making Freestyle even much stronger than it is, but would be very difficult if the trust of players is still been threatened by such unproffesional decisions.
Patrik Schoupal (Etaoin Shrdlu)
This is unfair practise and should be forbidden. As FIDE rules clearly says one person can play just one game at the same time. But probably people have been cheating and therefore there have been a need to fight with this, by implying a human mode, making this type of cheating much more difficult.
Personally, I have nothing against the necessity to apply moves by hand. This is a high level tournament and people who are really interested should try to find their time or at least a back up for a game or two. But I want to play as strong tournament as it is possible and would be unfortunate, if some people won't be able to participate because of previous involvements. Already paying starting fee, counting they can play some games in engine only mode, and been informed it is not possible just a week before the tournament!
Very unprofessional and I'm really disappointed by this, because it hasn't happened for the first time. My wishes goes to making Freestyle even much stronger than it is, but would be very difficult if the trust of players is still been threatened by such unproffesional decisions.
Patrik Schoupal (Etaoin Shrdlu)
I Agree.
Norm
Norm
I agree too except that unfortunately the behavior of starting a tournament with multiple nicks and abandoning the ones that got poor early results wasn't deemed illegal and therefor can't be considered to be cheating. In fact many finalists have openly used this mode to increase their chances in the prelims.
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Thanks for that clarification, Alan. I have pointed out in the past that some enforceable, reasonable measures could be taken to reduce the percentages for such a strategy:
1. Clear and unambiguous definition of who is on every team, what nick(s) they are using, and who is formally or informally allied to whom. Sure, people can lie, but if they are caught there could be some penalties such as a one year or permanent ban.
2. High financial penalties (in terms of share of prize money) should a multiple-nick team (or alliance) fail to play any rounds of the qualifiers for any of its entries, or display signs of deliberately throwing a round (quick "mouse slips" for instance). Any kind of provable collusion has to be severely penalized.
3. Automatic draws when teamed/allied nicks face each other. This is critical; you can't allow teams to decide who is going to win a particular game. That really makes the tournament a sham.
4. Forbidding multiple-nick entries to play engine-only in any round.
The above would not extirpate the practice of multiple nicks (which I don't think is necessarily fair, if a team consists of a few people) but at least it would make things considerably more difficult. What you don't want is to make it possible for somebody to flood the tournament with entries and go 4/4 just on the basis of statistical probabilities.
1. Clear and unambiguous definition of who is on every team, what nick(s) they are using, and who is formally or informally allied to whom. Sure, people can lie, but if they are caught there could be some penalties such as a one year or permanent ban.
2. High financial penalties (in terms of share of prize money) should a multiple-nick team (or alliance) fail to play any rounds of the qualifiers for any of its entries, or display signs of deliberately throwing a round (quick "mouse slips" for instance). Any kind of provable collusion has to be severely penalized.
3. Automatic draws when teamed/allied nicks face each other. This is critical; you can't allow teams to decide who is going to win a particular game. That really makes the tournament a sham.
4. Forbidding multiple-nick entries to play engine-only in any round.
The above would not extirpate the practice of multiple nicks (which I don't think is necessarily fair, if a team consists of a few people) but at least it would make things considerably more difficult. What you don't want is to make it possible for somebody to flood the tournament with entries and go 4/4 just on the basis of statistical probabilities.
The issue of multiple nicks is a tricky one.
Personally, I would like to see it disallowed, and enforced via other measures. Nelson's ideas all make sense. Simply declaring it to be illegal would go a really long way. The enforcement mechanisms can all be tinkered with.
As long as it is allowed, it's hard to criticize people who do it.
Of course, eliminating the engine mode doesn't really change much regarding this issue.
Vas
Personally, I would like to see it disallowed, and enforced via other measures. Nelson's ideas all make sense. Simply declaring it to be illegal would go a really long way. The enforcement mechanisms can all be tinkered with.
As long as it is allowed, it's hard to criticize people who do it.
Of course, eliminating the engine mode doesn't really change much regarding this issue.
Vas
I don't think it's feasible to ban multiple nick entries, because you can put different people you know on each entry. As far as defining "team", it'd be hard to conclusively know if anyone is actually working together unless they admit it. I mean, if I was playing in the tournament, and called up Nelson for advice on a couple moves, then we both ended up taking prizes, would prize penalties be invoked per Nelson's suggestion? Banning this would essentially eliminate the idea of "freestyle" where you can use any resource you have to help you. I dislike multiple-nick entries as much as the next guy, but I can't think of a reasonable way to eliminate them.
No doubt, this is an unpleasant and unwelcome surprise to many people.
This is the real point! You and all the best freestylers (all present here in this forum) are sure in this point. Freestyle skill is more important than OTB skill in freestyle tournaments! I´m not convinced yet! I believe in new time control (more time for the games) and OTB skill will work. Let us see. If there is the same as usual, I´m convinced. But no mention about luck (I have seen it here and this is real bullshit; okay, I will have a very deep look to this). I´m very happy, that we have now the right time control (90'+30"). Longer tc would be worse. Freestyle is not correspondence chess!
This is the real point! You and all the best freestylers (all present here in this forum) are sure in this point. Freestyle skill is more important than OTB skill in freestyle tournaments! I´m not convinced yet! I believe in new time control (more time for the games) and OTB skill will work. Let us see. If there is the same as usual, I´m convinced. But no mention about luck (I have seen it here and this is real bullshit; okay, I will have a very deep look to this). I´m very happy, that we have now the right time control (90'+30"). Longer tc would be worse. Freestyle is not correspondence chess!
Roland,
there is a very simple rule which tends to work very well in making predictions: things will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.
It's not always true of course, but it's a very good place to start.
Vas
there is a very simple rule which tends to work very well in making predictions: things will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.
It's not always true of course, but it's a very good place to start.
Vas
Okay, but if you are right, why are you even now so interesseted in the games of the Redskins? I make a prediction: It will be like yesterday ...
Are you masochistic?
Are you masochistic?
Roland,
I was trying to keep it simple - it's like explaining Newtonian physics without getting into relativity.
In fact, the rule does sometimes fail, and you have indeed found a very good counterexample.
Vas
I was trying to keep it simple - it's like explaining Newtonian physics without getting into relativity.
In fact, the rule does sometimes fail, and you have indeed found a very good counterexample.
Vas
Hi Arno,
thanks for the clarification. I've copied you now on an email I sent to Akhtar at Pal. Obviously, we need chess people who have some clue making these calls.
Generally, we should also find some format where these things can be discussed. The entire freestyle format is new and there are a lot of interesting issues. If there is anything we can do with our forum here to help things along, please let me know.
Vas
thanks for the clarification. I've copied you now on an email I sent to Akhtar at Pal. Obviously, we need chess people who have some clue making these calls.
Generally, we should also find some format where these things can be discussed. The entire freestyle format is new and there are a lot of interesting issues. If there is anything we can do with our forum here to help things along, please let me know.
Vas
Hi Everyone,
I don't like the changes to the rules, although the 90-30 is not a problem.
I will not play under the current rules.
Thank You Richard Stickles for you involvement and hopefully you can reinstate computer and centaur play.
Norm Pruitt
I don't like the changes to the rules, although the 90-30 is not a problem.
I will not play under the current rules.
Thank You Richard Stickles for you involvement and hopefully you can reinstate computer and centaur play.
Norm Pruitt
This may be a surprise to some but I voted 'neutral' on this one. I just didn't feel strongly enough either way to have a decided yea or nay opinion.
I do think the negatives tend to outweigh the positives, though.
* Dramatically less participation is a sure result--though this certainly will help the chances of those who do enter. Taking everything into consideration this is a net negative.
* Nobody will be able to manage more than two entries without multiple-person team. Meaning: higher quality play from the very first rounds. Net positive.
* Even higher prevalence of draws seems likely as well, added to 90+30 I would guess we will see a 10% jump in draws. Some might argue this is a negative; I see it as a neutral result.
* Another positive for those who do play: we won't see 250-move draws (unless Pablo enters).
If you aren't entering on account of the rules, obviously the changes are terrible. If you're entering anyway, the changes are at worst a nuisance and at best a better opportunity to win.
I do think the negatives tend to outweigh the positives, though.
* Dramatically less participation is a sure result--though this certainly will help the chances of those who do enter. Taking everything into consideration this is a net negative.
* Nobody will be able to manage more than two entries without multiple-person team. Meaning: higher quality play from the very first rounds. Net positive.
* Even higher prevalence of draws seems likely as well, added to 90+30 I would guess we will see a 10% jump in draws. Some might argue this is a negative; I see it as a neutral result.
* Another positive for those who do play: we won't see 250-move draws (unless Pablo enters).
If you aren't entering on account of the rules, obviously the changes are terrible. If you're entering anyway, the changes are at worst a nuisance and at best a better opportunity to win.
Nobody will be able to manage more than two entries without multiple-person team.
I'm pretty sure that if I had 10 machines in a central location or via remote, I could handle the move entry on all of them alone and only lose a few minutes during the game.
Alan
I'm pretty sure that if I had 10 machines in a central location or via remote, I could handle the move entry on all of them alone and only lose a few minutes during the game.
Alan
Yeah, but if you had ten machines in a central location or via remote...would you try that approach? I wouldn't. Too much dilution of the all-important centaur element. Statistically you might be right, though.
With 10 very high power computers and a good book, I would guess the results from a first round with 10 engine-only entries on strong hardware would be something like 2-3 wins, 3-4 losses, and 4-5 draws. Repeating this in the second round would I think more often than not produce a 2 point start along with a couple of 1.5 point starts. At that point, switching to true free style mode would be a good thing to do.
You could argue for starting in freestyle mode in round 2 with one of the winners from round 1, but even then you would want the engines to play the other winners and drawers to maintain a fresh horse in case the one you was riding got shot out from under you! :-)
Regards,
Alan
You could argue for starting in freestyle mode in round 2 with one of the winners from round 1, but even then you would want the engines to play the other winners and drawers to maintain a fresh horse in case the one you was riding got shot out from under you! :-)
Regards,
Alan
are multiple handles of the same person allowed?
Yes, most of the recent finalists have been on more than one team before making the finals.
Hi All.
I got this answer from CSS today:
"Hi Bjorn,
I'm answering you by proxy instead of Dieter.
Although there is a change of rules - compared to former tournaments - the effect is very small. In the former tournaments the rules stated very clearly that a human has to available all the time even if an engine is playing. Even now all players are able to let the engine play the game. They might use the client to enter the moves and let run the engine on the same machine. In effect, all players are now forced to use their own brain as an insurance against bugs.
We have thought about the issue and talked about the cons and pros. In the end, the pros for the new rules have won.
The most important points are that the games will be much longer. I guess they will last for appr. 3 to 5 hours. The danger of disconnects are much higher as in former tournaments. And, as the past has shown, many players do not use an actual client. Therefore, the tournament director will have to decide the game and the result might be a serious number of games will not be decided on the chessboard. An additional point is that the job for the TD will be much easier.
I see no reason for any player to withdraw from the tournament just because of the no engine, no centaur change. Everyone is able to use their engine as they like and no one is forced to use just the smallest amount of chess his/her own chess input.
The Freestyle Tournament has always been an event for humans, not for computers. It's now time to enforce that fact. It's not clear if there will be some rule changes in the future (maybe time controls or tournament mode with finals), but we believe that our decision concerning the playing mode was correct so we don't have to change that again in future tournaments.
Best regards
Timo Klaustermeyer
Steinwender EDV-Beratung GbR
Theodorstraße 41p
22761 Hamburg
klaustermeyer@steinwender.de"
Well.. i somehow accept it more now but "The Freestyle Tournament has always been an event for humans, not for computers. It's now time to enforce that fact."
If thats the truth, then i do understand the change in rules. But my understanding has been that its a toerny for humans and computers. Obvisley i have been wrong here :-(
Regards
Bjorn Osterman
I got this answer from CSS today:
"Hi Bjorn,
I'm answering you by proxy instead of Dieter.
Although there is a change of rules - compared to former tournaments - the effect is very small. In the former tournaments the rules stated very clearly that a human has to available all the time even if an engine is playing. Even now all players are able to let the engine play the game. They might use the client to enter the moves and let run the engine on the same machine. In effect, all players are now forced to use their own brain as an insurance against bugs.
We have thought about the issue and talked about the cons and pros. In the end, the pros for the new rules have won.
The most important points are that the games will be much longer. I guess they will last for appr. 3 to 5 hours. The danger of disconnects are much higher as in former tournaments. And, as the past has shown, many players do not use an actual client. Therefore, the tournament director will have to decide the game and the result might be a serious number of games will not be decided on the chessboard. An additional point is that the job for the TD will be much easier.
I see no reason for any player to withdraw from the tournament just because of the no engine, no centaur change. Everyone is able to use their engine as they like and no one is forced to use just the smallest amount of chess his/her own chess input.
The Freestyle Tournament has always been an event for humans, not for computers. It's now time to enforce that fact. It's not clear if there will be some rule changes in the future (maybe time controls or tournament mode with finals), but we believe that our decision concerning the playing mode was correct so we don't have to change that again in future tournaments.
Best regards
Timo Klaustermeyer
Steinwender EDV-Beratung GbR
Theodorstraße 41p
22761 Hamburg
klaustermeyer@steinwender.de"
Well.. i somehow accept it more now but "The Freestyle Tournament has always been an event for humans, not for computers. It's now time to enforce that fact."
If thats the truth, then i do understand the change in rules. But my understanding has been that its a toerny for humans and computers. Obvisley i have been wrong here :-(
Regards
Bjorn Osterman
"The Freestyle Tournament has always been an event for humans, not for computers. It's now time to enforce that fact."
This is a fundamental misconception. It never was and never will be a tournament for humans because computers are vastly stronger chess players in their own right and getting stronger all the time. The human element is present, and it is not unimportant, but the main human input is not a showcase of OTB skill but rather one of concentrated managerial skill and mouse coordination. With only a little tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, right now a human's most important tangible contributions are to ensure that the right GUI is installed and to be able to reconnect after an ISP break!
I would bet Mr. Klaustermeyer has never played a single round of Freestyle. If he had, he wouldn't say such nonsense.
I never imagined that the rule change imposed for this tournament would become permanent. Change my vote from 'neutral' to 'decidedly against'.
This is a fundamental misconception. It never was and never will be a tournament for humans because computers are vastly stronger chess players in their own right and getting stronger all the time. The human element is present, and it is not unimportant, but the main human input is not a showcase of OTB skill but rather one of concentrated managerial skill and mouse coordination. With only a little tongue-in-cheek hyperbole, right now a human's most important tangible contributions are to ensure that the right GUI is installed and to be able to reconnect after an ISP break!
I would bet Mr. Klaustermeyer has never played a single round of Freestyle. If he had, he wouldn't say such nonsense.
I never imagined that the rule change imposed for this tournament would become permanent. Change my vote from 'neutral' to 'decidedly against'.
Hi Nelson,
My feeling exactly.
I was writing a harsh post, but you said it more politely.
I actually built another computer for this tournament. Not the best but a collection of parts accumulated over the past year.
A Core2 Dual which should easily out preform my AMD FX-60.
A sad passing of Freestyle as we know it, and a sad goodbye from a computer only player.
I really like this forum.
Norm Pruitt
My feeling exactly.
I was writing a harsh post, but you said it more politely.
I actually built another computer for this tournament. Not the best but a collection of parts accumulated over the past year.
A Core2 Dual which should easily out preform my AMD FX-60.
A sad passing of Freestyle as we know it, and a sad goodbye from a computer only player.
I really like this forum.
Norm Pruitt
With my vote flipping, the tally is now 30-4 against. I don't think this argument is over.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / New rules of the 7th CSS/PAL Freestyle Chess tournament
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill