Maybe you should try single-core next year

[Dave Gomboc]

Thank you for the elaboration on what was discussed at the players' meeting.

I am not sure why you think a name change would be required, or what the extra M stands for. A cluster is not a computer, and a championhip for Humans usually does not allow the participation of teams, rather than individuals.

The abbreviations meant the following:
WCCC = World Computer Chess Championship
WMCCC = World Micro[C]omputer Chess Championship

Historically, the WCCC was held every three years (since 1974?) by the ICCA (today: ICGA), but WMCCC was held every year. We don't usually speak of "microcomputers" in the 21st century, but the basic notion of the limitation of the WMCCC events was that competitors must be run using personal computing hardware that is approximately what's available at reasonable cost to the general public. (I say "approximately" because some of the competitors used to overclock the processor!) I think that the 8-core limit that was imposed this time around is in the spirit of the old WMCCC title, which had been retired when ICGA decided to run the WCCC every year instead of just every three years. It would be appropriate (indeed, very reasonable) to bring that title back as an official ICGA title to be awarded every year.

ICGA has always permitted teams (of humans!) in its competitions. Besides which, a cluster is a computational device, full stop. The layout of processors amongst one versus multiple mainboards is a engineering question that is irrelevant to the determination of what constitutes a single chess-playing entity.

The most common argument of proponents for limited hardware was to not scare away amateurs from the tournament. It is not likely that more than two or three participants could afford clusters of 1000+ CPUs, and it is clear that a tournament with only two or three participants will not be viable.

The ICGA has two titles it has traditionally used. WCCC traditionally has not had a hardware limit on its competitors at all, and it probably would have been best to keep it that way. WMCCC could have been used for a) a title awarded at the same tournament to the top chess system that was within the core restriction or b) a title awarded by a different tournament (so that competitors don't have to forfeit their chance to win the WMCCC to maximize their chance to win the WCCC).

What has happened is that successful unlimited-hardware competitors are awarded a much less prestigious title (via the olympiad, where they are lumped in with a bunch of other games whose gold medals are much easier to earn) that is simply not rooted in IC[C/G]A tradition.

It's my personal belief that any amateur that participated would be thrilled with winning a WMCCC title (or Olympiad gold medal), and that diluting the value of the WCCC title in order to encourage amateur interest is counterproductive.

Dave

[bob]

Based on the discussions, in my opinion, I think that they should retain the current setup where there is a WCCC and an Olympiad so as to satisfy both sides.

Maybe WCCC would have different categories like:

Uniform Hardware
No Hardware Limit

Uniform Hardware would make sure that other teams would not have an unfair advantage of having much faster and expensive machine just like what happened in the recent WCCC where other teams used inferior hardware. The hardware to be used must be the most common hardware used by ordinary people.

No Hardware Limit would showcase the combination of both hardware and software innovations.

If I can afford the expenses I will try to join WCCC next year with my amateur engine.

Before you write such a post, you need to give some _serious_ thought to what you are suggesting.

For example, a commercial entity can buy a big cluster, and use it 24/7 to prepare book cooks for the real tournament. No way you can limit that. Which means money can still buy a tournament just as surely as exceptional hardware can produce a win when used to play the actual games. But one can also use exceptional hardware to _prepare_ for the real games even if it is not used _in_ the games.

There is _no_ way to have a reasonable competition where money does not help.

To think otherwise is not thinking at all.

And if you discount the importance of the book cooking that goes on, again, you have not been involved enough to know how important the book actually is.

What I'm basically suggesting is to keep both format so as to satisfy both sides. In my opinion, if one's engine is stronger it will dominate whatever the hardware is. It doesn't matter if it's uniform single core or mega cluster. That's the point I'm trying to prove. Take a look at the result in Pamplona, Rybka dominates whatever event, limited or unlimited hardware.

About the book cooking you've mentioned, I'm aware that it's an essential part of the tournament. I already knew that way before when I was just reading computer chess programming theory and doesn't have an engine yet. I didn't mention in my post that I discount the importance of a book. My beta tester/operator/book maker is actually cooking some book for my engine already.

Yes, I have not been involved enough but that doesn't necessarily mean that I knew nothing.

I'll remind you once again, we used to have a uniform platform tournament every year. Don Beal organized it. It died due to lack of interest.

[Dave Gomboc]

Thank you for the elaboration on what was discussed at the players' meeting.

I am not sure why you think a name change would be required, or what the extra M stands for. A cluster is not a computer, and a championhip for Humans usually does not allow the participation of teams, rather than individuals.

The abbreviations meant the following:
WCCC = World Computer Chess Championship
WMCCC = World Micro[C]omputer Chess Championship

Historically, the WCCC was held every three years (since 1974?) by the ICCA (today: ICGA), but WMCCC was held every year. We don't usually speak of "microcomputers" in the 21st century, but the basic notion of the limitation of the WMCCC events was that competitors must be run using personal computing hardware that is approximately what's available at reasonable cost to the general public. (I say "approximately" because some of the competitors used to overclock the processor!) I think that the 8-core limit that was imposed this time around is in the spirit of the old WMCCC title, which had been retired when ICGA decided to run the WCCC every year instead of just every three years. It would be appropriate (indeed, very reasonable) to bring that title back as an official ICGA title to be awarded every year.

ICGA has always permitted teams (of humans!) in its competitions. Besides which, a cluster is a computational device, full stop. The layout of processors amongst one versus multiple mainboards is a engineering question that is irrelevant to the determination of what constitutes a single chess-playing entity.

The most common argument of proponents for limited hardware was to not scare away amateurs from the tournament. It is not likely that more than two or three participants could afford clusters of 1000+ CPUs, and it is clear that a tournament with only two or three participants will not be viable.

The ICGA has two titles it has traditionally used. WCCC traditionally has not had a hardware limit on its competitors at all, and it probably would have been best to keep it that way. WMCCC could have been used for a) a title awarded at the same tournament to the top chess system that was within the core restriction or b) a title awarded by a different tournament (so that competitors don't have to forfeit their chance to win the WMCCC to maximize their chance to win the WCCC).

What has happened is that successful unlimited-hardware competitors are awarded a much less prestigious title (via the olympiad, where they are lumped in with a bunch of other games whose gold medals are much easier to earn) that is simply not rooted in IC[C/G]A tradition.

It's my personal belief that any amateur that participated would be thrilled with winning a WMCCC title (or Olympiad gold medal), and that diluting the value of the WCCC title in order to encourage amateur interest is counterproductive.

Dave

I was disappointed that HGM didn't reply with his thoughts on my thoughts, so I've bumped this thread in the hope of continuing the discussion.

Dave

[bob]

Thank you for the elaboration on what was discussed at the players' meeting.

I am not sure why you think a name change would be required, or what the extra M stands for. A cluster is not a computer, and a championhip for Humans usually does not allow the participation of teams, rather than individuals.

The abbreviations meant the following:
WCCC = World Computer Chess Championship
WMCCC = World Micro[C]omputer Chess Championship

Historically, the WCCC was held every three years (since 1974?) by the ICCA (today: ICGA), but WMCCC was held every year. We don't usually speak of "microcomputers" in the 21st century, but the basic notion of the limitation of the WMCCC events was that competitors must be run using personal computing hardware that is approximately what's available at reasonable cost to the general public. (I say "approximately" because some of the competitors used to overclock the processor!) I think that the 8-core limit that was imposed this time around is in the spirit of the old WMCCC title, which had been retired when ICGA decided to run the WCCC every year instead of just every three years. It would be appropriate (indeed, very reasonable) to bring that title back as an official ICGA title to be awarded every year.

ICGA has always permitted teams (of humans!) in its competitions. Besides which, a cluster is a computational device, full stop. The layout of processors amongst one versus multiple mainboards is a engineering question that is irrelevant to the determination of what constitutes a single chess-playing entity.

The most common argument of proponents for limited hardware was to not scare away amateurs from the tournament. It is not likely that more than two or three participants could afford clusters of 1000+ CPUs, and it is clear that a tournament with only two or three participants will not be viable.

The ICGA has two titles it has traditionally used. WCCC traditionally has not had a hardware limit on its competitors at all, and it probably would have been best to keep it that way. WMCCC could have been used for a) a title awarded at the same tournament to the top chess system that was within the core restriction or b) a title awarded by a different tournament (so that competitors don't have to forfeit their chance to win the WMCCC to maximize their chance to win the WCCC).

What has happened is that successful unlimited-hardware competitors are awarded a much less prestigious title (via the olympiad, where they are lumped in with a bunch of other games whose gold medals are much easier to earn) that is simply not rooted in IC[C/G]A tradition.

It's my personal belief that any amateur that participated would be thrilled with winning a WMCCC title (or Olympiad gold medal), and that diluting the value of the WCCC title in order to encourage amateur interest is counterproductive.

Dave

I was disappointed that HGM didn't reply with his thoughts on my thoughts, so I've bumped this thread in the hope of continuing the discussion.

Dave

My personal thought is that I prefer that the WCCC not be "open to all". It wasn't in years gone by. There are other better events for beginners, such as the CCT/ACCA/etc tournaments that have no cost, and are a lot of fun. A WCCC event really should only allow strong programs. _really_ strong programs. I'd rather have 6 strong entries and play a double-RR than to have 32 entries with most of them being weak, which makes it harder to interpret the final results since the strong programs end up playing a subset of the weaker engines and that makes the final standings less clear.

For the 1977 WCCC, as an example, one had to apply for acceptance except for a few exceptions. If you finished in the top four at the 1976 ACM tournament, you were an automatic qualifier (I did that in 1976 in fact). Otherwise you had to submit games so that the tournament committee could be reasonably sure that your program could actually play chess and not do silly things like promote a pawn into a king and such.

The thing the ICGA has missed is that you'd like to limit the number of participants based on program skill levels, not based on who can afford the time or expense to go to exotic locations for almost 2 weeks.

[gerold]

It's like asking Schumacher, Raikonnen, Fisichella to drive a 1950's vintage car in a competition to see who the fastest driver is in 1950 cars.

Actually that would be REALLY interesting to see !!

You got that right Ray. 1950 cars were a lot more exciting
I really would like to see open and limited world match.(Chess)

Best to you,

Gerold.

[frankp]

And since it is a 'local/secret' event (not readily visible live on the usual chess servers) it could take place in someone's basement and the results simply reported afterwards. This would also avoid controversy when the real result has to be agreed afterwards because the OTB result was affected by the program - e.g. a bug.
:-)

[hgm]

I don't think 'micro-computer' is a good term to describe what is now in the shops. If You want to make a distinction, I would continue to call the limited-hardware tournament WCCC, and call the unlimited-hardware tournament WCCCC (World Computer-Cluster Chess Champisonship).

I don't really have a strong feeling about any of this. I was just reporting what was said at the evaluation meeting. (In which I also refrained from taking a stance on the issue.) If somene wants to argue about it, they should argue with the persons that made the original statements, as I won't be able to answer for them, and my own opinion should not be taken into account (not being a serious contender).

[Uri Blass]

I agree that the term micro-computer is not relevant for limitation to 8 cores.

I think micro-computer is about one core and no parallel search.

I also think that the term WCCC should allow clusters so you need to find a new name.

I suggest simply to call world 8 core computer championship in the name W8CC

Uri

[AdminX]

I agree that the term micro-computer is not relevant for limitation to 8 cores.

I think micro-computer is about one core and no parallel search.

I also think that the term WCCC should allow clusters so you need to find a new name.

I suggest simply to call world 8 core computer championship in the name W8CC

Uri

Why not just use "CCCC" or "C4" for short, it should be an explosive event anyway.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I agree that the term micro-computer is not relevant for limitation to 8 cores.

I think micro-computer is about one core and no parallel search.

I also think that the term WCCC should allow clusters so you need to find a new name.

I suggest simply to call world 8 core computer championship in the name W8CC

Uri

Why not just use "CCCC" or "C4" for short, it should be an explosive event anyway.

hehehe,that was good Ted I have to admit