WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[bob]

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.



There is NO evidence to support your claim about "most of the strong engines are doing the same thing Vas did." In fact, Mark has looked at deep fritz 11 and found no similarities to fruit or ip* at all... So not everyone resorts to cheating. In fact, it appears most do not.

gts

[bob]

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.

Even I have proposed updating the rules. But I have not seen anyone that would say "copy and attribute and you are OK." That I would not support, and I would personally avoid such tournaments as uninteresting to the extreme... Easy to copy, hard to create.

The "added value" clause is completely hopeless. Why add a rule that can't be enforced? What is "added value"? Elo? "How is it measured?" ICC? Obviously can't be in real tournaments since you have to show added value before competing, you have to compete to show added value. "How much added value"? 50 Elo? 100 Elo? Again, how will this be measured. You can't use ICC/FICS. It is trivial to manipulate ratings there to show whatever you want...

As I said, unenforceable rules are worse than no rules...

[bob]

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.

Let's go back and be accurate in history. In 1970 the ACM organized the first US computer chess championship. By 1974 it was obvious there were programs outside the US, so the first WCCC was organized. It was organized again in 1977 in Toronto. There, Barend Swets spent the first two days agitating to form an organization for computer chess research. We held an organizational meeting, and the ICCA was formed. It worked with, but was not affiliated with the ACM. It was SOLELY created by computer chess authors, with the express goal of fostering research in computer-chess world-wide. The original charter had a mandate for a WCCC every 3 years, alternating between North America and Europe, to provide as much visibility, and stimulate as much interest as possible. I was one of those original members. I could find the 1977 WCCC tournament bulletin and tell you exactly who the original members were because everyone present joined (no dues at the time)... A few years later, the journal was created, leaving behind the old newsletter Ben Mittman had been sending out regularly, and things moved right along...

It has always been about the programmers/authors/researchers, not about the spectators. The events were generally set up for spectators, but the events were held for the programmers...

[Don]

Right on target, Don. But I believe those people in that site does not talk seriously. All is kind of a joke as his own "decembrist" name show it.
Now, if he DO seriously talk of millionaires in chess, then they are really imbecile.

Fern

Hi Fern,

I believe you have to take people at their word. There is a certain type of individual who will stab you with jokes. It's a way to get a point across and yet at the same time have a certain level of deniability. I know English is not your best so I'll state it another way in case you don't understand. They will tell a joke to poke fun to get a point across, but then deny it and say, "it was just a joke." It's a dishonest tactic. So they are probably serious about what they are saying, but if they are not then they are just dishonest and have set out to mislead people.

I have also seen this type of tactic used as a form of elitism. A coded message or a joke that only they get but other don't which makes them feel superior.

So my policy is to take people at their word. They can try to deny what they say, but I can always show them exactly what they did say.

I don't see any point in burying your head in the sand and pretending that they don't have the values that they portray themselves as having. I can see that you are uncomfortable enough with this that you feel compelled to sweep it under the rug or explain it away.

Don

[Terry McCracken]

I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.

That's like wanting to see clean athletes compete against doping athletes.

God ... I can't believe you can even possibly equate this to doping !!! Really you guys must be going a little crazy. Face reality and progress. If there is nothing legally wrong with an engine, please do not equate that to doping ... something which is definetely illegal and very harmful to your health.

Of course you couldn't. It's not that they're crazy, they're just operating at a level much higher than you.

[bob]

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.

You are a drag-racer. Your goal is to run the first sub-3.75 second quarter mile in top fuel. Where would you rather start:

(1) from scratch;

(2) Worsham's 3.75 record-holding dragster, when you only have to figure out a way to gain another .25 seconds... As opposed to figuring out how to even GET to 3.75 first.

That's the point..

[bob]

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

It DOES get you the preceding +3000 Elo however, as opposed to starting from scratch...

[bob]

3) "and has violated the GPL. "
No, Houdini does not violate any software license, and does not contain any GPL-licensed code. The only third-party code included in Houdini is the Gaviota and Nalimova EGTB code.

Unless you are secretly the sole author of Robbolito, I don't see how that bit in bold could possibly be true.

And isn't Robbolito source only available under the GPL license?

[edit: Another question, is the Nalimov code the same code found in Crafty, or some other implementation? Because that code needs a license/permission direct from Eugene Nalimov... Did you secure that permission for Houdini?]

You are correct about the Nalimov stuff. It is NOT GPL, or PD. It has a very specific copyright and requires written permission to use...

[Don]

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.

You are a drag-racer. Your goal is to run the first sub-3.75 second quarter mile in top fuel. Where would you rather start:

(1) from scratch;

(2) Worsham's 3.75 record-holding dragster, when you only have to figure out a way to gain another .25 seconds... As opposed to figuring out how to even GET to 3.75 first.

That's the point..

They don't get that because they don't respect what we do. Some of them simply are used to being gifted with free software and now feel entitled to taking and have no respect for the givers (except when they are takers like themselves.) I occasionally get hate email by someone who didn't like Komodo or had a problem with it, apparently they feel that I have been negligent in my responsibility to provide them with free stuff at their demand. No good deed goes unpunished, right?

Here is something else that exposes their illogical and twisted thinking:

1. The Ippo's claim to be fresh and original.
2. Vas claims to be fresh and original.
3 Houdart claims to be fresh and original.

But even the clone advocates know they are all liars! They are putting all their energy into a defense and justification of cloning which nobody has admitted to! How ridiculous is that?

So I think we need to completely end the discussion on whether it's ok to copy someone else's code because that is not the issue here. They say they didn't copy code, we proved that they did. The accused are not trying to justify code copying so why do we care about an issue that has not even been raised? In fact the accused seem to feel the SAME WAY we do about code copying, they have made statements condemning the practice, they say they don't do it themselves, so what is there to debate here?

[marcelk]

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.

Even I have proposed updating the rules. But I have not seen anyone that would say "copy and attribute and you are OK."

That could be because you were not present, not because these opinions are not discussed among the participating programmers.
'Attribution' can for example to be understood as getting recognized as co-author on equal footing and sharing the accolades. If you use open-sourced Houdofish as your base line and your entry wins, the Houdofish team is co-winner. If you want to be sole winner, then just don't re-use Houdofish's code but write your own. If another team wants to use Houdofish also, that is fine as long as they have added >150 elo by themselves as well as you did.

Provided the copying is legal ofcourse. If the Houdofish team doesn't want this to happen with their code, but still wishes to publish their sources, they can apply a more restrictive "Crafty-like" license and the code is off-limits in tournaments.

Easy to copy, hard to create.

If we would want to reward effort, we should also ban the use of compilers. Or ask hand-punched paper tape entries only.
Some think it should not be about effort but about what it brings on the board.

The "added value" clause is completely hopeless. Why add a rule that can't be enforced? What is "added value"? Elo? "How is it measured?" ICC? Obviously can't be in real tournaments since you have to show added value before competing, you have to compete to show added value. "How much added value"? 50 Elo? 100 Elo? Again, how will this be measured. You can't use ICC/FICS. It is trivial to manipulate ratings there to show whatever you want...

I'm not an expert but I've heard of a program called 'bayeselo', many rating lists seem to use it.
If that doesn't work they could always throw in the 'expert opinion' clause popularized by rule 2.

As I said, unenforceable rules are worse than no rules...

Yes indeed, and that would be another fine reason to update them.

The core of the question is if the current generation of programmers/members want a tournament that calls itself the WCCC to be one with the strongest legal programs or one with the strongest 100.0%-original ones. In the 1970s this distinction didn't exist but now it is there and it appears to stay. The question how to make understandable/enforceable/etc rules for the desired format is only a secondary question, not a primary one.

In case the ICGA wants remain the place for original programs only (which is a possible outcome), I agree that "Computer Chess Olympiad" is a way more appropriate label for this tournament than "WCCC".