WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[stevemulligan]

Therefore, Amir Ban and Shay Bushinsky are the 2011 World Computer Chess Champions.

Congrats to Amir & Shay. If the WCCC sold wall size posters of you guys I'd buy one!!

[geots]

I would love to see THAT war, cloned or not. I cannot care less about the preposterous discussion of people that have engines with 100 or many more LESS elo points programs and still insist "their" program has been COPIED.

Houdini is the best engine to date regards
Fern

Fern, I agree with you but I have a proposal for good. Of course the people in Bob's team have a point that cant be refutated by handwaving alone.

A sort of violation of strict rules has been done on several levels, but your point is also valid.

So I would like to make the proposal that a sort of penalization is put upon the wrongdoers who have violated the orders, but this measure cant go in extremes of a life ban.

At least Vas should be granted a general respect because of his yearlong improving of his engine.

IMO it's high time for such a solution, now the ICGA has shown that it can have its way and JUNIOR has won another Wch title although its shape is no longer of the same class as Houdini or Rybka. Let's try to get over it. Without artificial claims that JUNIOR now is the best engine. it is NOT.

Would you support my proposal?? Thanks.

The point that Junior is not the best engine, which is a no-brainer, is not the main issue. I won't support any solution where Vas has to admit guilt for anything that most all strong engines are doing now and have been doing. I'm not going to ever respect a decision where the top the finishers in this WCCC had a vote Rybka's fate. Doesn't matter about honesty. That is irrelevant. You do not ever put person/persons in that position. And then won't even tell you who the voters were. This is worse than "Chicago politics". I'll have to pass on this one.


gts

[Terry McCracken]

I would love to see THAT war, cloned or not. I cannot care less about the preposterous discussion of people that have engines with 100 or many more LESS elo points programs and still insist "their" program has been COPIED.
A copy is something equal to the copied thing. If better, it is not anymore a copy.
Or said differently: one thing is to make a copy, another is to do something with previous stuff from other entity. BTW, is the way science go on.
Maybe some guys should have told the original authors, pay something or whatever, BUT the fact is that no matter what incorrect thing they committed , the product is a new one.
So...

Houdini is the best engine to date regards
Fern

How about I steal both Robert's derivitive and Vas's and create a fcking monster and enter it? Are you ok with that? Go commercial when it's 300elo stronger and sell it for 150 USD. Will you buy it?

King of the Klones Regards...

[Terry McCracken]

I would love to see THAT war, cloned or not. I cannot care less about the preposterous discussion of people that have engines with 100 or many more LESS elo points programs and still insist "their" program has been COPIED.

Houdini is the best engine to date regards
Fern

Fern, I agree with you but I have a proposal for good. Of course the people in Bob's team have a point that cant be refutated by handwaving alone.

A sort of violation of strict rules has been done on several levels, but your point is also valid.

So I would like to make the proposal that a sort of penalization is put upon the wrongdoers who have violated the orders, but this measure cant go in extremes of a life ban.

At least Vas should be granted a general respect because of his yearlong improving of his engine.

IMO it's high time for such a solution, now the ICGA has shown that it can have its way and JUNIOR has won another Wch title although its shape is no longer of the same class as Houdini or Rybka. Let's try to get over it. Without artificial claims that JUNIOR now is the best engine. it is NOT.

Would you support my proposal?? Thanks.

The point that Junior is not the best engine, which is a no-brainer, is not the main issue. I won't support any solution where Vas has to admit guilt for anything that most all strong engines are doing now and have been doing. I'm not going to ever respect a decision where the top the finishers in this WCCC had a vote Rybka's fate. Doesn't matter about honesty. That is irrelevant. You do not ever put person/persons in that position. And then won't even tell you who the voters were. This is worse than "Chicago politics". I'll have to pass on this one.


gts

Cool you immoral wonder, you be the first sucker to buy my Frankenstein Monster!

[tomgdrums]

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).

At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.

No my analogy does not fall short. Because a true artist, like the pure and true chess authors you seem to believe in, creates the art they are compelled to create. (I ain't talking about Britney Spears...an artist ain't always an artist if you get my drift)

But the true artist after creating the best work of art they are capable of then releases it to the public (for free or for money) The receiver then receives it! It is a two way process.

AND by releasing their engines (free or for money) most engine authors are engaging in a two way process! AND they all, IF they won the tournament, would post that as advertising or publicity.

My statement stands.

Dr. Hyatt doesn't get it.

[tomgdrums]

Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).

At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.

The adulation is built in the title of the event.
As for the money, commercial engines use the title very actively for marketing purposes. For example on the Shredder home page the word "world champion" appears about 20 times.

If you don't want justified remarks from chess fans that the winner cannot even remotely be considered the best engine on the planet, don't call your event a "World Championship". Call it, for example, the "Superior Chess Author Meeting".

Robert

+1!

(and I must say I love Shredder...but Robert makes the point...these authors use--as they should---any good results as advertising.)

[CRoberson]

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

Your analogy falls short. The tournaments are competitions between the authors. The general public plays very little to no role in the tournaments. On the other hand, artists rely on the general public's interest and money to be able to continue their art (in many cases).

At any rate, the creative talent do not have to follow the whims of the public. We should be grateful that they share with us. Unless they want something from us, such as adulation or money or anything else.

No my analogy does not fall short. Because a true artist, like the pure and true chess authors you seem to believe in, creates the art they are compelled to create. (I ain't talking about Britney Spears...an artist ain't always an artist if you get my drift)

But the true artist after creating the best work of art they are capable of then releases it to the public (for free or for money) The receiver then receives it! It is a two way process.

AND by releasing their engines (free or for money) most engine authors are engaging in a two way process! AND they all, IF they won the tournament, would post that as advertising or publicity.

My statement stands.

Dr. Hyatt doesn't get it.

Actually, the person that doesn't get it is you.

The tournaments started in the 1970s by the ACM and were picked up by the ICGA. The tournament rules were created for the scientists that originally entered the ACM events. The general public's interest wasn't a concern. The ICGA has continued that view point (being an event more interested in the science than the chess itself) and due to that Bob is right.

When looking at something and judging it, one needs to look at why it exists as opposed to what one wants from it.

[Lion]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

What does it matter? That legitimises a derivative?? If I modified it..tuned it for 50 or 100 elo it makes it right?? Is that your point?

You miss the original statement !
By doing copy/past/release, do dont get over 50 ELO improvement

[Rebel]

But most "authors" want a fair competition without clones/derivatives, where everyone writes their own program and then we compete head-to-head with each other on as level a playing field as we can define...

This position is not an obvious majority opinion anymore from the tri-ennial ICGA meeting this week where this was a lengthy agenda point. A fair group of participating programmers present have expressed they want the rules to be updated. One line of thinking is that attribution plus added value should be sufficient to compete, instead of 100% originality.

Good to hear that.

[hgm]

If you don't want justified remarks from chess fans that the winner cannot even remotely be considered the best engine on the planet, don't call your event a "World Championship". Call it, for example, the "Superior Chess Author Meeting".

You don't seem to get it. Of course it is a World Championship, just not the World Championship you imagine it is. It is the World Championship for computer-chess programmers. And Amir is the new World Champion. No need to change the name or anything.

That there remain stupid / pigheaded people that think Junior is the World Champion, and that this shouldimply stronger programs don't exist, is their problem. Remarks of such people are certainly not 'justified', but just show their ignorance.