It is finally time to announce:

[Steve B]

Partly out of frustration and partly to give people time to decide whether they want this or not, I am going to refrain from checking back until Friday. I will decide whether to withdraw this offer or to go through with it, based upon what I read here then.

I can see that when the spring of 2012 gets closer, that demonstrated interest should grow. I guess that it is just a little far away at the moment for most to get excited about. I will go on faith that the turnout will warrant such a large prize fund, for now. However, if the turnout does not materialize then I reserve the right to adjust the prize fund to match the turnout. I do not think that it will be necessary though. At least I hope not!

For those that are still skeptical about the prize fund though, I will open a separate account and start populating it with cash as it becomes available from the stock positions that I close. I will then send the original monthly statements to a well known and trusted person for verification.

i am fairly well known here i guess
If your serious about the prize fund then i will volunteer to verify and monitor the account

i am a CPA and managing partner in an accounting firm in NYC
PM me if you are interested in my participation
i will give you my office phone number and we can talk on the phone

Regards
Steve

I think that you are an outstanding choice for this task and thank you for volunteering!

i have been in contact with Mike these last few weeks
i have been supplied with the Oct. and November 2010 Tournament prize fund account statements
i can confirm that the balance in the account as of November 30 2010 is $11,965.82

Regards
Steve

[Dave Mitchell]

I'd like to see this more focused on what we're trying to do, and let these "side issues", fall away.

1) It should be a CHESS computer tournament, not a Shogi, Go, and every other computer game, tournament. Shogi and Go deserve their own event, and most chess fans are not interested in either. By including them, you alienate both groups, and divert precious resources of time, computers, and money.

We need a lot of time, to fit in all the rounds (or it's a joke). Just when will the Shogi and Go competitors have time for their rounds?

We'll have a chess master/GM to comment on several games, but what will (the Shogi and Go competitors), have for their games? You can't do justice to all three - keep your eye on the ball, and do the one thing you want to do, and do it right.

2) Don't waste your time worrying about the clones -- invite them, instead! They will pay an entry fee, adding to the pot, and add a bit of interest to the tournament, as well.

Between now and 2012, I'm confident that any engine author that wants to, will be able to produce a stronger version, for the tournament. Something that will hand any clones, their lunch, and send them packing. (but will that happen?).

There's a bit of interest, right there!

It's equal opportunity - and the cloner's get their due, good or bad. Frankly, they have some great programs sometimes, (as we've all seen), and equal opportunity is the American way.

Let's play chess, and not haggle endlessly about who's "pure" as the driven snow, and who's not. I just don't care. It's all about the chess.
Although I love open source chess programs, but for this tournament, it simply doesn't matter.

It's like a race - you run it in whatever shoe's (or barefoot), you want to wear. Every racer runs the same distance, starts at the same time, etc.

3) All competitors bring their own external HD. They have NO access to the hardware inside the case of the system being provided, at any time. Stops cheating in it's tracks.

4) Have your systems equipped with quads or more, not miniature processors intended for mundane processing. I remember clearly how it was with all the under-powered processors of old. (compared to today's quads). Very sad!

You don't want a sad event, do you? Don't use under-powered systems. That would be a train wreck, imo.

5) In selecting your expert commentator, get somebody who A) has a good sense of humor, is pleasant, and B) knows something about (and has an interest in), computer chess programs. We've had some excellent NM's and IM's, in the past. I still recall fondly following Mike Valvo's games against the champion -- great stuff!

[Michael Sherwin]

I'd like to see this more focused on what we're trying to do, and let these "side issues", fall away.

1) It should be a CHESS computer tournament, not a Shogi, Go, and every other computer game, tournament. Shogi and Go deserve their own event, and most chess fans are not interested in either. By including them, you alienate both groups, and divert precious resources of time, computers, and money.

We need a lot of time, to fit in all the rounds (or it's a joke). Just when will the Shogi and Go competitors have time for their rounds?

We'll have a chess master/GM to comment on several games, but what will (the Shogi and Go competitors), have for their games? You can't do justice to all three - keep your eye on the ball, and do the one thing you want to do, and do it right.

2) Don't waste your time worrying about the clones -- invite them, instead! They will pay an entry fee, adding to the pot, and add a bit of interest to the tournament, as well.

Between now and 2012, I'm confident that any engine author that wants to, will be able to produce a stronger version, for the tournament. Something that will hand any clones, their lunch, and send them packing. (but will that happen?).

There's a bit of interest, right there!

It's equal opportunity - and the cloner's get their due, good or bad. Frankly, they have some great programs sometimes, (as we've all seen), and equal opportunity is the American way.

Let's play chess, and not haggle endlessly about who's "pure" as the driven snow, and who's not. I just don't care. It's all about the chess.
Although I love open source chess programs, but for this tournament, it simply doesn't matter.

It's like a race - you run it in whatever shoe's (or barefoot), you want to wear. Every racer runs the same distance, starts at the same time, etc.

3) All competitors bring their own external HD. They have NO access to the hardware inside the case of the system being provided, at any time. Stops cheating in it's tracks.

4) Have your systems equipped with quads or more, not miniature processors intended for mundane processing. I remember clearly how it was with all the under-powered processors of old. (compared to today's quads). Very sad!

You don't want a sad event, do you? Don't use under-powered systems. That would be a train wreck, imo.

5) In selecting your expert commentator, get somebody who A) has a good sense of humor, is pleasant, and B) knows something about (and has an interest in), computer chess programs. We've had some excellent NM's and IM's, in the past. I still recall fondly following Mike Valvo's games against the champion -- great stuff!

Lots of good points that I need to think over.

About cloning though, it is a mess no matter what I do. But, if I reject someone with out absolute proof that all they have is a simple clone then I open myself up to lawsuits. If lots of simple clones show up then it becomes a joke. IF no more source code of the strongest engines is released prior to the tournament then the clones might not be that much of a factor. But, what if, say for example, Stockfish 2.3, 3400 ELO is released just a few months before the start, it could be a disaster and the tournament might as well be named, 'Clone Wars'. What about all the amateurs that I hope will be there--what would be the point for them to show up just to be pushed way down the leader board and out of site, because of all the clones? I wonder if anyone from the Stockfish team is concerned about the integrity of such an event and would be willing to comment. At this point I just do not see a way out of this dilemma. I can not put up $120,000 just to have 20 slightly different versions of Stockfish take most of it. What to do?

[Don]

Michael,

I don't think it will be good for your tournament to let John Doe take a copy of Robbo, change the author and program name to something else and then come and win a thousand dollars at your tournament.

You are not open to law suits for not letting someone enter - that is your prerogative who you invite and your rules. Of course anyone can try to sue over anything, but this will cost them a lot of money and they will have to show some cause in order to even get to court. They would then have to deal with the clonership issue and the heat that gets put on them.

Any tournament like this in my opinion is for the real authors. The tournament very quickly loses prestige if actual authors are not present and this should be a requirement. This will automatically shake off some of the cloners who hide in the shadows and there is nothing wrong with requiring that an author is well established in the computer chess community either. For example if John Doe walks in at the last moment and nobody has ever heard of him, you could have trouble.

In view of the generous prize money you are offering, I think it is not unreasonable to require his presence.

To me if the real author shows up and he is known (or can be vouched for by someone who is will known and respected), it is probably good enough - as you say care must be taken not to take this clone issue too far. There are some programs which in my opinion blur the distinction - they gain my respect if they continue to stick around and continue to improve their programs.

I'd like to see this more focused on what we're trying to do, and let these "side issues", fall away.

1) It should be a CHESS computer tournament, not a Shogi, Go, and every other computer game, tournament. Shogi and Go deserve their own event, and most chess fans are not interested in either. By including them, you alienate both groups, and divert precious resources of time, computers, and money.

We need a lot of time, to fit in all the rounds (or it's a joke). Just when will the Shogi and Go competitors have time for their rounds?

We'll have a chess master/GM to comment on several games, but what will (the Shogi and Go competitors), have for their games? You can't do justice to all three - keep your eye on the ball, and do the one thing you want to do, and do it right.

2) Don't waste your time worrying about the clones -- invite them, instead! They will pay an entry fee, adding to the pot, and add a bit of interest to the tournament, as well.

Between now and 2012, I'm confident that any engine author that wants to, will be able to produce a stronger version, for the tournament. Something that will hand any clones, their lunch, and send them packing. (but will that happen?).

There's a bit of interest, right there!

It's equal opportunity - and the cloner's get their due, good or bad. Frankly, they have some great programs sometimes, (as we've all seen), and equal opportunity is the American way.

Let's play chess, and not haggle endlessly about who's "pure" as the driven snow, and who's not. I just don't care. It's all about the chess.
Although I love open source chess programs, but for this tournament, it simply doesn't matter.

It's like a race - you run it in whatever shoe's (or barefoot), you want to wear. Every racer runs the same distance, starts at the same time, etc.

3) All competitors bring their own external HD. They have NO access to the hardware inside the case of the system being provided, at any time. Stops cheating in it's tracks.

4) Have your systems equipped with quads or more, not miniature processors intended for mundane processing. I remember clearly how it was with all the under-powered processors of old. (compared to today's quads). Very sad!

You don't want a sad event, do you? Don't use under-powered systems. That would be a train wreck, imo.

5) In selecting your expert commentator, get somebody who A) has a good sense of humor, is pleasant, and B) knows something about (and has an interest in), computer chess programs. We've had some excellent NM's and IM's, in the past. I still recall fondly following Mike Valvo's games against the champion -- great stuff!

Lots of good points that I need to think over.

About cloning though, it is a mess no matter what I do. But, if I reject someone with out absolute proof that all they have is a simple clone then I open myself up to lawsuits. If lots of simple clones show up then it becomes a joke. IF no more source code of the strongest engines is released prior to the tournament then the clones might not be that much of a factor. But, what if, say for example, Stockfish 2.3, 3400 ELO is released just a few months before the start, it could be a disaster and the tournament might as well be named, 'Clone Wars'. What about all the amateurs that I hope will be there--what would be the point for them to show up just to be pushed way down the leader board and out of site, because of all the clones? I wonder if anyone from the Stockfish team is concerned about the integrity of such an event and would be willing to comment. At this point I just do not see a way out of this dilemma. I can not put up $120,000 just to have 20 slightly different versions of Stockfish take most of it. What to do?

[michiguel]

Michael,

I don't think it will be good for your tournament to let John Doe take a copy of Robbo, change the author and program name to something else and then come and win a thousand dollars at your tournament.

You are not open to law suits for not letting someone enter - that is your prerogative who you invite and your rules. Of course anyone can try to sue over anything, but this will cost them a lot of money and they will have to show some cause in order to even get to court. They would then have to deal with the clonership issue and the heat that gets put on them.

Any tournament like this in my opinion is for the real authors. The tournament very quickly loses prestige if actual authors are not present and this should be a requirement. This will automatically shake off some of the cloners who hide in the shadows and there is nothing wrong with requiring that an author is well established in the computer chess community either. For example if John Doe walks in at the last moment and nobody has ever heard of him, you could have trouble.

An idea: Make the tournament by invitation. Authors won't "register", they will submit an application, and then... they could or could not be invited. Of course, you will invite almost everybody.

Miguel

In view of the generous prize money you are offering, I think it is not unreasonable to require his presence.

To me if the real author shows up and he is known (or can be vouched for by someone who is will known and respected), it is probably good enough - as you say care must be taken not to take this clone issue too far. There are some programs which in my opinion blur the distinction - they gain my respect if they continue to stick around and continue to improve their programs.

I'd like to see this more focused on what we're trying to do, and let these "side issues", fall away.

1) It should be a CHESS computer tournament, not a Shogi, Go, and every other computer game, tournament. Shogi and Go deserve their own event, and most chess fans are not interested in either. By including them, you alienate both groups, and divert precious resources of time, computers, and money.

We need a lot of time, to fit in all the rounds (or it's a joke). Just when will the Shogi and Go competitors have time for their rounds?

We'll have a chess master/GM to comment on several games, but what will (the Shogi and Go competitors), have for their games? You can't do justice to all three - keep your eye on the ball, and do the one thing you want to do, and do it right.

2) Don't waste your time worrying about the clones -- invite them, instead! They will pay an entry fee, adding to the pot, and add a bit of interest to the tournament, as well.

Between now and 2012, I'm confident that any engine author that wants to, will be able to produce a stronger version, for the tournament. Something that will hand any clones, their lunch, and send them packing. (but will that happen?).

There's a bit of interest, right there!

It's equal opportunity - and the cloner's get their due, good or bad. Frankly, they have some great programs sometimes, (as we've all seen), and equal opportunity is the American way.

Let's play chess, and not haggle endlessly about who's "pure" as the driven snow, and who's not. I just don't care. It's all about the chess.
Although I love open source chess programs, but for this tournament, it simply doesn't matter.

It's like a race - you run it in whatever shoe's (or barefoot), you want to wear. Every racer runs the same distance, starts at the same time, etc.

3) All competitors bring their own external HD. They have NO access to the hardware inside the case of the system being provided, at any time. Stops cheating in it's tracks.

4) Have your systems equipped with quads or more, not miniature processors intended for mundane processing. I remember clearly how it was with all the under-powered processors of old. (compared to today's quads). Very sad!

You don't want a sad event, do you? Don't use under-powered systems. That would be a train wreck, imo.

5) In selecting your expert commentator, get somebody who A) has a good sense of humor, is pleasant, and B) knows something about (and has an interest in), computer chess programs. We've had some excellent NM's and IM's, in the past. I still recall fondly following Mike Valvo's games against the champion -- great stuff!

Lots of good points that I need to think over.

About cloning though, it is a mess no matter what I do. But, if I reject someone with out absolute proof that all they have is a simple clone then I open myself up to lawsuits. If lots of simple clones show up then it becomes a joke. IF no more source code of the strongest engines is released prior to the tournament then the clones might not be that much of a factor. But, what if, say for example, Stockfish 2.3, 3400 ELO is released just a few months before the start, it could be a disaster and the tournament might as well be named, 'Clone Wars'. What about all the amateurs that I hope will be there--what would be the point for them to show up just to be pushed way down the leader board and out of site, because of all the clones? I wonder if anyone from the Stockfish team is concerned about the integrity of such an event and would be willing to comment. At this point I just do not see a way out of this dilemma. I can not put up $120,000 just to have 20 slightly different versions of Stockfish take most of it. What to do?

[Dave Mitchell]

Michael,

I don't think it will be good for your tournament to let John Doe take a copy of Robbo, change the author and program name to something else and then come and win a thousand dollars at your tournament.

Oh yes it WILL be good for it! THAT kind of possibility is hard core buzz that a promoter LOVES to get.

"I wonder how many clones will show up?"
"I wonder how many clone authors will admit that they're cloners?"
"I wonder how they'll place in the tournament?"

Great stuff!

Don't think of the cloners as stealing prize money away. Think of them as contributing a goodly entrance fee, and fighting in the arena. Surely, they're underdogs, and everybody loves to see them try - even if they fail.

The entry fee should have two levels, at least. Seeded programs pay a lower entry fee than others. Not enough to chase all the unknown (non-seeded) authors away, but enough to get only the more serious authors.

Space is limited, of course. So you have room for the seeded program authors and then you have room for N number of unseeded programs. Simple, interesting, and avoids the whole haggle of cloners not being "as pure as the driven snow".

This will automatically shake off some of the cloners who hide in the shadows and there is nothing wrong with requiring that an author is well established in the computer chess community either. For example if John Doe walks in at the last moment and nobody has ever heard of him, you could have trouble.

No you don't have trouble. If John Doe walks in at the last moment and wins the tournament, then John Doe is a genius and lucky, and that's good buzz, as well:

"Chess pro's checkmated by mystery man".

And obviously, were this to happen, we could all learn something from John Doe and his program!

To me if the real author shows up and he is known (or can be vouched for by someone who is will known and respected), it is probably good enough - as you say care must be taken not to take this clone issue too far. There are some programs which in my opinion blur the distinction - they gain my respect if they continue to stick around and continue to improve their programs.

Maybe you should set up a confessional booth with a local priest, for all the cloners, eh? Stop the nonsense! Good chess, is good chess, and it doesn't matter what little tweak was done to open source software, to make it that way. Good is good!

About cloning though, it is a mess no matter what I do.

No, it's not. You regulate how many cloners are available to enter, by seeding the "regular" top program authors and their programs.

Don't discriminate - regulate, and make it a fair contest with those cloners who are interested enough to compete.

The only people you turn down, are the one's who you don't have space for - but seeded programs and authors, have precedence in attending.

An analogy:
Say you want to have a tennis match at your local Tennis Club. You only have N number of courts, and you need good buzz. So you figure out the number of players you can have in total, and then seed maybe 1/5th of that max number of players, for "name" players. Those seeded players may actually be paid just to come, or receive substantial discounts, etc.
Their entry fee may be waived or reduced, as well.

Other players pay an entry fee, and may not receive appearance money or as many discounts. Once the tournament starts however, EVERY PLAYER IS GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO WIN, and treated with respect. I don't care if the cloner is a bartender and changed one line of code in Fruit - If he's a competitor, he gets respect.

It's simple to solve the clone problem - give everyone an equal opportunity to win. The well known authors and programs are seeded into the tournament ranks, and that seems fair - and is used in Tennis Tournaments, for example, with great success.

[Michael Sherwin]

Michael,

I don't think it will be good for your tournament to let John Doe take a copy of Robbo, change the author and program name to something else and then come and win a thousand dollars at your tournament.

Oh yes it WILL be good for it! THAT kind of possibility is hard core buzz that a promoter LOVES to get.

"I wonder how many clones will show up?"
"I wonder how many clone authors will admit that they're cloners?"
"I wonder how they'll place in the tournament?"

Great stuff!

Don't think of the cloners as stealing prize money away. Think of them as contributing a goodly entrance fee, and fighting in the arena. Surely, they're underdogs, and everybody loves to see them try - even if they fail.

The entry fee should have two levels, at least. Seeded programs pay a lower entry fee than others. Not enough to chase all the unknown (non-seeded) authors away, but enough to get only the more serious authors.

Space is limited, of course. So you have room for the seeded program authors and then you have room for N number of unseeded programs. Simple, interesting, and avoids the whole haggle of cloners not being "as pure as the driven snow".

This will automatically shake off some of the cloners who hide in the shadows and there is nothing wrong with requiring that an author is well established in the computer chess community either. For example if John Doe walks in at the last moment and nobody has ever heard of him, you could have trouble.

No you don't have trouble. If John Doe walks in at the last moment and wins the tournament, then John Doe is a genius and lucky, and that's good buzz, as well:

"Chess pro's checkmated by mystery man".

And obviously, were this to happen, we could all learn something from John Doe and his program!

To me if the real author shows up and he is known (or can be vouched for by someone who is will known and respected), it is probably good enough - as you say care must be taken not to take this clone issue too far. There are some programs which in my opinion blur the distinction - they gain my respect if they continue to stick around and continue to improve their programs.

Maybe you should set up a confessional booth with a local priest, for all the cloners, eh? Stop the nonsense! Good chess, is good chess, and it doesn't matter what little tweak was done to open source software, to make it that way. Good is good!

About cloning though, it is a mess no matter what I do.

No, it's not. You regulate how many cloners are available to enter, by seeding the "regular" top program authors and their programs.

Don't discriminate - regulate, and make it a fair contest with those cloners who are interested enough to compete.

The only people you turn down, are the one's who you don't have space for - but seeded programs and authors, have precedence in attending.

An analogy:
Say you want to have a tennis match at your local Tennis Club. You only have N number of courts, and you need good buzz. So you figure out the number of players you can have in total, and then seed maybe 1/5th of that max number of players, for "name" players. Those seeded players may actually be paid just to come, or receive substantial discounts, etc.
Their entry fee may be waived or reduced, as well.

Other players pay an entry fee, and may not receive appearance money or as many discounts. Once the tournament starts however, EVERY PLAYER IS GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO WIN, and treated with respect. I don't care if the cloner is a bartender and changed one line of code in Fruit - If he's a competitor, he gets respect.

It's simple to solve the clone problem - give everyone an equal opportunity to win. The well known authors and programs are seeded into the tournament ranks, and that seems fair - and is used in Tennis Tournaments, for example, with great success.

I am not charging an entry fee. I am not interested in profit. Does this alter your argument in any way? I must admit that I understand your point of view, but, I am not sure that I get it. I am not sure that other authors will get it either. Maybe you can make a poll to see how well your argument is tolerated. My guess is 90% against. But it could surprise me!?

[Dave Mitchell]

I am not charging an entry fee. I am not interested in profit. Does this alter your argument in any way? I must admit that I understand your point of view, but, I am not sure that I get it. I am not sure that other authors will get it either. Maybe you can make a poll to see how well your argument is tolerated. My guess is 90% against. But it could surprise me!?

You need to charge an entry fee to the non-seeded programs to prevent no-shows, after you've set aside space and maybe a system for them to run on. You're not making a profit, you're helping defray expenses and ensuring only the serious will enter from the non-seeded portion of the entries.

I'll start a poll with some further suggestions, and see what people think, but understand that you will never please everybody, and the only way out of the "clone issue", is to either go straight invitational only, (which may eliminate a lot of the top programs), go the way I'm suggesting, or go wading through the quicksand of "who's a clone and who is not". For the latter, there is simply no easy answer, for every case. You can smell the lawsuits going this third way, of course.

In the unlimited machine division, the clones will be outclassed by the hardware that the commercial programs, and Crafty, will surely use.

In the single cpu (hopefully a quad), the clone programs will have an arena to really be competitive in. The commercial programs may not want to be in that division.

At the end of the tournament, the best single cpu program will face off against the best of the unlimited class, of course.

You know that every new strong program is called a clone, right off, whether it is or not. Ruffian was that way when it burst on the scene, and so was Fruit and Rybka is still dogged with it.

Here's why I don't think much of the name calling, in a nutshell:

On the other hand I am not sure whether I should invest again lot's of time in my "mediocre" engine as long we have genius like Milos, Norman or Robert which all took the Rosie Ruiz way...
Greets, Thomas

Note:
Rosie Ruiz was the infamous Boston Marathon Woman's winner, who was found to have won by cheating, and subsequently, disqualified.

Because Robert (Hyatt), has changed Crafty, he's now a big cheater??

Let's say for the sake of argument, that Hyatt did change Crafty and added some idea's from Fruit or Stockfish, to improve it.

Isn't that exactly what a professional should be doing? Looking for ways to improve his program? And I doubt very much if Hyatt copied code verbatim, into Crafty.

Using idea's and/or underlying principles of another program (or book, or movie, or research paper, etc.), is not cheating. That's smart, and that's exactly why smart groups get together and share their ideas, with their colleagues. From the Royal Society, right on down to our little forum, the payoff is obvious, and large.

[Dave Mitchell]

Three polls are up, Michael.

If you'd like to see other polls from me, let me know.

[Michael Sherwin]

Your last argument is much stronger than the previous ones.

Not sure about the seeded/non-seeded structure though. Others have said that just having a room full of authors will quickly expose the simple cloners. And the derivateers (coining a new word) that make substantial progress in strengthening a base program maybe should be allowed to attend. Maybe!


I will pay very close attention to the polls.