WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[geots]

No reflection on you Norm- you didn't make the rating list. But my first reaction to Ivanhoe T52E was the correct one. I knew when I saw it up there near the top- but I just hoped. No go. It is a version most anyone would be proud to own- not weak by any means. But compared to 5 or 6 other Ivanhoe versions- it is just a dud. So that means no reason to load B-63, since it did not even rate that high. Overnight, T52E was given a beating by the same engine that received almost the same exact beating 24 hours earlier by Ivanhoe 9.46a.

For anyone interested in the Ivanhoes, I would take 9.46a first, then followed by 9.47c, B46a, B47d,- in no particular order. Go for RobboLito 0.09, Ippolit 0080b, Igorrit 0.86v9 and the slightly weaker Igorrit 0.86v8, Firebird_1.1, Fire_22_xTreme- throw in 1 or 2 Rybka Killer versions, and 1 or 2 MishasMaulers and you have the weapons to start WWIII. Forget the "Swoopers"!


Red Army Marching On Regards,

george

[bob]

Why don't you try explaining what you mean? Not everyone can follow your extremely convoluted reasoning here. I will repeat, since Don's response followed Ed's post, what does technical ability have to do with morality in this context (the icga investigation, finding Vas guilty, while many are using ideas from ip* in their programs)???

Start here: http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

What does a link to a work of fiction have to do with this discussion???

http://poll.pollcode.com/fsaR_result?v

That's no fiction.

You are right. THAT is "meaningless". 20 votes and you draw a conclusion? Without knowing WHO they are? Without knowing how they found out about such a silly poll? Without knowing what they know? Without knowing ANYTHING in reality??? You should find a good book on sampling theory and read it.

REAL scientific data there. I'm glad the ICGA panel didn't do things in such a meaningless way.

[bob]

What does this have to do with morality? Don hasn't copied any source code. He's followed the ICGA rules...

Telling........

I agree. You assume EVERYONE EXCEPT Vas has copied. REALLY "telling".

Don't get me started about Rybka

I've never noticed that you have "stopped" about it...

[bob]

Ed is simply exposing his dishonest intentions here.

Now behave you bully, we are NOT at Rybka Forum here.

Understood ?

I simply write the truth wherever I post. You should try it.

[bob]

Ed's off the deep end for reasons unknown...

You and Don could be twins.

As if you did not understand the topic is about the definition of plagiarism.

You obviously do not understand the term...

(1) in software, we do not talk about "ideas", we talk about "source code".

(2) in literature we talk about copying ideas OR text. You do not have to do BOTH to plagiarize. One will do quite nicely. In the ICGA case, Vas copied code. NO mention of ideas anywhere, by anybody, except for your strange attempt at a red-herring argument that really looks foolish to most.

The WIKI definition of plagiarism, or the Webster's definition is perfectly satisfactory here because they all have that big OR in them, none of them require you to copy ideas to be guilty of plagiarism. They say ideas OR text OR ... The "OR" is important. You are trying to claim it means the same as AND. Any programmer knows that is false. As is your entire argument.

[bob]

According to Ed Shroeder, I would be a hypocrite if I implemented MP on Komodo because it's not my original idea, it would be plagiarism.

Correction, according to the ICGA.

There is absolutely no such opinion within the ICGA. Your statement is false, and you KNOW it is false. The ICGA journal proves that clearly.

The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit.

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/rybka ... pionships/

Plagiarism includes ideas.

Includes ideas OR text (aka source code). Does NOT have to include both.

[bob]

The Houdofish team might prefer to be listed in more than one entry (like Nalimov). And if it is really really good, why not let them increase their chances this way by letting their genes spread...

I'm sure they would. Which is exactly why it has to be forbidden. Because others could of course also release a 150-Elo detuned version of their engine, let a few dozen 'developers' undo the detuning and add somemeaning less changes, and enter them all as 'cooperators' to multiply their chances.

I fear there are far simpler ways to cheat than through such conspiracy scheme that would be easy to spot as well (eg. play remotely with a Houdolitto+GM centaur for example, or let the operator convey information about the opponent's pondering and influence the move selection or time allocation that way...)

There are different ways to describe the same elephant. Another is unwillingness to be transparent towards the TD regarding origins, and yet another is the difficulty of verifying originality even with source code provided.

But the important point is that the elephant in question is a naughty animal and intentionally wants to sabotage the rules and wreck the system. It would be plain stupid to accomodate them, because however you will change the rules, it won't change the elephant, and he will still find ways to wreck the new system. It is like saying: "My neighbors hate me so much they throw stones through the glass panes of my front door. So next time I am going to leave for work I will leave it open, so they won't be able to do that anymore". Bad idea...

The main reason the tournament is so devaluated is absence of Stockfish, Komodo, Critter... Had they all been there, I don't think there would have been many complaints other than from incurable fanboys,which should not be taken seriously. Changing the rules in the direction you propose does not do the slightest to cure that problem. And the engines it is intended to open the road for would most likely not come either.

The assumption there is that forcing everyone to write their own move generator, SEE, SMP before they can add value is a good thing. You can also see it as a barrier that keeps new entrants out.

Maybe "a barrier that keeps LAZY new entrants out."

[bob]

The assumption there is that forcing everyone to write their own move generator, SEE, SMP before they can add value is a good thing. You can also see it as a barrier that keeps new entrants out.

Yes and that may be a good thing. If you can't code a legal move generator then why should you be allowed in?

Of course, there is a way around that. Allow the use of common base parts. Some code that has a legal move gen and a few other simple things like an eval that only counts pieces and Alpha/Beta search to jump start development. That would be it - no timers or transposition tables are anything else. Don't even give them Perft - if they can't code Perft then that is their problem.

The question becomes what should be in the jump start code. Such a rule is a bit of a problem due to erosion of the idea over time. Eventually, the jump start code would become something on the order of Rybka and that is going too far for now.

I do not like the idea of using someone else's movegen. The magic stuff I think is fine to share. Everybody gets the same set of bits for a sliding piece, whether they use direct computation, rotated bitboards, or magic multiply. Beyond there, however, you start to put the moves into some sort of order, both by piece type and by destination square, and that is something that can be highly customized and unique for each implementation.

[bob]

The assumption there is that forcing everyone to write their own move generator, SEE, SMP before they can add value is a good thing. You can also see it as a barrier that keeps new entrants out.

Yes and that may be a good thing. If you can't code a legal move generator then why should you be allowed in?

Because it is not a move generator programming contest.

This tournaments is clearly dying in its current form. Without change of direction this tournament is over in a few years.
That would not be because computer chess innovation has stopped as the innovation is very well alive.

With the heavily improved derivatives the question is not that of possessing skill but choosing where to apply that skill to:
reinventing wheels or adding value.
We have seen that the latter is possible without necessarily doing the first. Great, then welcome those entrants please.

I agree with others that such change doesn't directly address some other core issues:
- unwillingness to attribute sources to begin with
- difficulty in enforcement (avoiding the 5-year delay in the Rybka fiasco)
- decline in interest to invest in tickets, hotel and time
- coverage. this is not a technical problem (games were broadcast live and reports followed quickly after each round), but a channeling problem (eg: even the organization's own website still showed the entry form instead of covering the events).
- missing of many of the strongest programs

The question becomes what should be in the jump start code. Such a rule is a bit of a problem due to erosion of the idea over time. Eventually, the jump start code would become something on the order of Rybka and that is going too far for now.

Why not shake up the feathers here. "All open source" could be a fantastic starting point.
Get rid of rear mirrors and embrace the Internet age.

Re Don's question who of the participants suggested the discussion of an 'added value' rule set,
in public I can only remark that it was suggested by some of the top entrants and not by me.

I believe that the tournament is dying, not because of the rules, but because of the costs, and the availability of the internet as a better way to hold the events. CCT passed the WCCC years ago. That's not a function of rules, but a function of ease of participation.

[Peter Berger]

i have kept silent way too long when it is about the core issue here in my opinion.

Let's step back to 2004.

Omid David decided to organize a WCCC in his home country.

I was a CTF member these days , and Omid was one of its main members too. Although he was controversial most of the time, I felt for him as a fellow member and a nice young man.

Bob Hyatt , a former contender in computerchess land from many years ago, did his very best to organize some kind of general boycott in the then CCC, even going so far to make it a topic about Israel.

ICGA was a horrible organisation according to him, completely useless with useless rules and standards, same as its events ( and this can be verified easily - everything's availlable on the internet somehow). He disagreed about everything when it is about this event, and wanted it to be cancelled. He ran a heated campaign, that I thought had some potential of being influential.

I decided to stop this. And so I did. I offered him to operate Crafty in Ramat-Gan.

Bob Hyatt was easily the most controversial ICGA member back then, and the ICGA officials even questioned his membership and his right to participate.

To see him as a main defender of ICGA rules in 2011 is just amazing: Bob Hyatt, you are a hypocrite!

nuff said.
Peter