Important announcement: World Computer Chess Championship –

[Henk]

That's a pity. In almost all sports we have doping control.

We should also have that with engines because it is so easy to dope them. Just take the binary, and crank up the 1-bits. Empirical studies have shown that already boosting the 1-bits to 1.1 (just by 10%) gives an unfair Elo advantage of around 20 points because stronger bits mean stronger moves.

Another unfair approach is chrome-plating the bits so that the bit-rot will be considerably reduced, compared to the unplated competitors. This method especially makes sense if you have to submit the engine before a tournament.

I mean for instance the amount of Stockfish vapor they sniffed during cooking their engines. If some are high it will be a fishy tournament.

[hgm]

And how would you know about their private agendas? You hacked them?

Because they told so. 'Private' is not the same as 'secret', right?

The existence of SF may well be a "threat" to ICGA-type tournaments, but that is not SF's fault. Nor does it have to be anybody else's fault.

I don't see why you think it would be any threat to ICGA. It is a threat to commercial Chess programming, for sure, but 'the more the merrier' definitely holds for ICGA and Chess engines.

[Ras]

Only engines are allowed to participate that are qualified as being 'original'.

Actually, there is some leeway. I failed to find the rules for this year, and that's because the ICGA website is a disaster, but for 2016 (emphasis by me):

https://icga.leidenuniv.nl/wp-content/u ... 2016-3.pdf

"Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details."

[mjlef]

I would love Stockfish to compete. I never really understood why they did not compete. I am sure some Stockfish programmers could make a good book, and find some very good hardware to run on. It would make the match more exciting.

[mjlef]

For the 2017 World Computer Chess Championship we are changing the format, removing the entry fee, and offering an expenses budget to each of the contestants. Our aim for 2017 will be to attract the strongest participants. There will be only 4 contestants, each of whom will receive 1,000 Euro for their expenses from the ICGA.

Does this mean only 4 participants are accepted? or more can be accepted but they can only offer 1000 euros to each of 4 participants?

Regarding attracting the strongest participants, perhaps ICGA should just invite the Stockfish team.

I want people to know that although I posted the announcement at David Levy's request, I do not agree with:

a. limiting WCCC to just 4 entries (David does say WCSC is not limited)
b. excluding all but the top two programs from this year from entering WCCC next year.

Both seem unfair to me. Programs change a lot from year to year so who knows which ones will be strongest next year? Restricting them could mean we do not even have the two most qualified programs. to me "World" should mean everyone. I do know space limits will mean we cannot host a huge number, but things like estimated elo could be used to select the top X programs that will "fit" in a playing room.

I understand something needed to be done due to the lack of entries this year. And incentives like paying some of the travel expenses is good, if it is fairly awarded by need or maybe simply the first 4 entries. But how can the limited entries even be chosen if there is interest by more than 4 programmers? What if one of the top two does not want to play next year? These new conditions are too exclusionary, and I hope they are rethought.

I have heard some rumors that a couple of more programs are likely to enter, so we hopefully should have a reasonable number this year. But we have to plan for the future.

[Jesse Gersenson]

I am sure the ICGA would love to see the authors enter Stockfish.

I am sure the ICGA would love to see the authors enter Houdini.

[leavenfish]

No current (strongest) Stockfish...No strongest Houdini = Sham World Computer Championship. Just sayin' what we are all thinking.

[syzygy]

And how would you know about their private agendas? You hacked them?

Because they told so. 'Private' is not the same as 'secret', right?

The usual connotation is one of secrecy. Private agenda as opposed to public agenda. Make the private agenda public and it is no longer private.

The existence of SF may well be a "threat" to ICGA-type tournaments, but that is not SF's fault. Nor does it have to be anybody else's fault.

I don't see why you think it would be any threat to ICGA.

A threat to ICGA-type tournaments...

It is a threat to commercial Chess programming, for sure, but 'the more the merrier' definitely holds for ICGA and Chess engines.

Many programmers collaborating on a single engine does not fit well with the ICGA approach, which aims at individual or small groups of programmers.

Anyway, "the more the merrier" does not exactly apply to a 2-engine "tournament".

What is your explanation for the demise of their tournaments? Is it entirely due to their own doing?

[hgm]

The usual connotation is one of secrecy.

'Private' as in 'private property'.

A threat to ICGA-type tournaments...

Still same response. Why should it be a threat to ICGA-type tournaments. What are 'ICGA-type tournaments' anyway? Tournaments that require presence?

Many programmers collaborating on a single engine does not fit well with the ICGA approach, which aims at individual or small groups of programmers.

I don't think so. What aspect of the 'ICGA approach' do you see as troublesome for large open-source projects? Any of the authors could enter it; GPL will be recognized as implicit permission by the other authors to do so.

Anyway, "the more the merrier" does not exactly apply to a 2-engine "tournament".

Indeed. It is obviously also not what ICGA is striving for. But you have to adapt to the circumstances.

What is your explanation for the demise of their tournaments? Is it entirely due to their own doing?

Lack of sponsors. No one is interested in computer Chess these days. Having computers play Chess doesn't promote sales of anything other than the Chess programs itself. Lack of funding makes it impossible to have the tournament in attractive locations, and the computer Chess community has to foot the bill itself.

[syzygy]

GPL will be recognized as implicit permission by the other authors to do so.

We may have had this discussion before. It is blatantly not the case that releasing code under the GPL implies permission for the author's name to be listed on the entry form of whatever engine in whatever tournament. What the GPL means is stated in the GPL itself.

(Not to mention the problem that any author's name can only be listed once in case of ICGA tournaments.)

Were there anything in your argument (and a tournament organiser could put something in it by stating in the rules that the author's permission is not required for code released under GPL), then anyone could take/fork/whatever Stockfish and submit it.

What is your explanation for the demise of their tournaments? Is it entirely due to their own doing?

Lack of sponsors. No one is interested in computer Chess these days. Having computers play Chess doesn't promote sales of anything other than the Chess programs itself. Lack of funding makes it impossible to have the tournament in attractive locations, and the computer Chess community has to foot the bill itself.

I don't think there is less public interest in computer chess than in the Rybka days.