World Computer Chess Championship

[Jouni]

Sadly I think nothing can save WCCC anymore. First mistake was going 2002 annual, which ruins the prestige of title.

[Rémi Coulom]

In Japan, they have very successful IRL tournaments for go and shogi. I'll participate in the World Computer Shogi Championship this year. Below is the list of the number of entrants in the past years:

Code: Select all

=================================
WCSC (year) #applicants #entrants
=================================
  18 (2008)  52          39   75%
  19 (2009)  52          42   81%
  20 (2010)  58          42   72%
  21 (2011)  51          37   73%
  22 (2012)  50          41   82%
  23 (2013)  48          39   81%
  24 (2014)  45          38   84%
  25 (2015)  46          39   85%
  26 (2016)  57          51   89%
  27 (2017)  58          50   86%
  28 (2018)  62
=================================

Here are my impressions about the main reasons why the WCCC is much less popular:

- The WCCC is way too long. Japanese people have almost no holidays, so tournaments take place over the week-end.
- The WCCC allows operators who are not the main programmer. I don't want to participate in the WCCC in person if the World Champion does not even bother to show up. The main point of having an IRL meeting should be for programmers to meet and have fun together, not to dermine which program is the strongest in a way that is statistically significant.
- Japanese people have a great sense of sportsmanship, good manners, and good organization. It creates a pleasant relaxed atmosphere, far from the level of hate and paranoia that has surrounded the WCCC.

My best experience by far in a computer-chess tournament was the Programmers Tournament, organized by Richard Pijl. This is the kind of tournament I'd like to participate in again.

[Rémi Coulom]

Also, for reference, I'd like to point to a similar discussion that took place 9 years ago:
https://www.game-ai-forum.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=66

I was the programmers representative at that time.

The 8-core limit decision was made in a completely opaque way. I was not at all involved in the discussion and was as surprised and shocked as the other programmers when David's letter was made public. That decision created a lot of anger and frustration.

I was also programmers representative when the ICGA decided to exclude Vincent Diepeveen from the World Computer Championship. Again, I was not even consulted when that decision was made. I believe few programmers were even aware that that decision was made.

I participated in my first world Computer Chess Championship in Paris, in 1997. I remember that the position of programmers representative was created at that moment. It was created because programmers were complaining that the way the ICGA works is opaque and disconnected from the programmers community. I feel that nothing has changed since then, and I have lost hope anything will ever change.

[mjlef]

In my experience, nice comes from nice.

The truth hurts sometimes, but better to say it than hide it behind nice white lies.

What are you talking about. If you are accusing me of lying, please provide details. From what I can see of your posts, you just want to annoy us. Please go away.

[mjlef]

You seem to not even understand how tournaments work. You have to enter first. Anyone can contact ICGA and suggest rules changes. I see you have not proposed a single change.

[mjlef]

Also, for reference, I'd like to point to a similar discussion that took place 9 years ago:
https://www.game-ai-forum.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=66

I was the programmers representative at that time.

The 8-core limit decision was made in a completely opaque way. I was not at all involved in the discussion and was as surprised and shocked as the other programmers when David's letter was made public. That decision created a lot of anger and frustration.

I was also programmers representative when the ICGA decided to exclude Vincent Diepeveen from the World Computer Championship. Again, I was not even consulted when that decision was made. I believe few programmers were even aware that that decision was made.

I participated in my first world Computer Chess Championship in Paris, in 1997. I remember that the position of programmers representative was created at that moment. It was created because programmers were complaining that the way the ICGA works is opaque and disconnected from the programmers community. I feel that nothing has changed since then, and I have lost hope anything will ever change.

First, thanks for posting this. Although I had heard about the 8 core change, I had no knowledge of how it was done. Not consulting you or the programming teams with such a change is wrong. Fortunately, that has been corrected since then since WCCC allows unlimited hardware. People make mistakes, but good ones correct them and I am glad that has happened on this issue. I would love to hear from you to get your background on these issues. I respect you and your work greatly.

Could you let me know more about Vincent's exclusion? I want to make sure it was proper.

I feel I have been consulted on major ICGA decisions and I have tried to make information about them public as soon as I get it. I am not really a voting member on the ICGA Board. But if anyone feels they were not treated properly, I want to help get the information out.

Note I am also open to someone else being the ICGA Programmers Representative. I brought up this issue with the ICGA Board when I started working on Komodo. I can understand that other programmers might consider it a conflict of interest, although I do not think I have done anything improper. At the time, David said he thought it was fine. But I am happy to step down should anyone with the interest and background wish to take the position.

Mark

[mjlef]

Also, for reference, I'd like to point to a similar discussion that took place 9 years ago:
https://www.game-ai-forum.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=66

I was the programmers representative at that time.

The 8-core limit decision was made in a completely opaque way. I was not at all involved in the discussion and was as surprised and shocked as the other programmers when David's letter was made public. That decision created a lot of anger and frustration.

I was also programmers representative when the ICGA decided to exclude Vincent Diepeveen from the World Computer Championship. Again, I was not even consulted when that decision was made. I believe few programmers were even aware that that decision was made.

I participated in my first world Computer Chess Championship in Paris, in 1997. I remember that the position of programmers representative was created at that moment. It was created because programmers were complaining that the way the ICGA works is opaque and disconnected from the programmers community. I feel that nothing has changed since then, and I have lost hope anything will ever change.

Thanks again for the link, which I just finished reading. The arguments in the thread are powerful, and it seems to have been resolved since then with the World Chess Software Championships addition, which is done on identical machines. So we not have an unlimited WCCC, and an identical hardware WCSC. So the end result was good. I see David did reply to the concerns, although I agree it would have been better if this happened during the decision process instead of after. But that is just why I started this thread.

[davidlevylondon]

On a couple of the points raised in recent posts:

I do not recall the 8-cores issue and therefore cannot comment, save to say that I agree that such rule changes should first be passed through the Programmers Representative for consultation and feedback. IWe will try to ensure that future rule changes are treated in this way.

Regarding the exclusion of Vincent - he had been extremely difficult to deal with for quite a while, and he had offended our Chinese hosts and sponsors in 2008 by his behaviour before he decided to leave Beijing.

Some people complain that the ICGA is too opaque in its decision-making. I shall endeavour to rectify that in a redraft of the ICGA by-laws (our consitition) which will be proposed in July. Mark Lefler, as Programmers Representative, will have ample opportunity to discuss the proposed changes with all programmers and to comment on them. If anyone has any points or suggestions to make about the ICGA going forward, will they please make them to Mark so that he can provide the ICGA with a co-ordinated proposal document.

Remi's point about insisting on having a mmebr of the programming team present is a valid one, but so often in the past we were told that the programmer(s) of one of the strongest programs were unavailable to come to the tournament, and so the choise was not to have their program or to allow an operator. I believe that the event would indeed be better if all the programmers turned up, but it creates problems in attracting sufficient entries. Some problems have no perfect solution.

Regards,

David

[Rémi Coulom]

Hi David,

Thanks for participating in this discussion.

I'll try to express my feelings about why I don't want to participate any more.

I don't think the opacity of the ICGA is the main problem. The Japanese associations that organize the tournaments I participate in are opaque to me, too. But I really don't care. They simply organize great events that everybody enjoys. And I want to meet them again year after year.

I believe that one fundamental difference between those tournaments and the ICGA tournaments, is that the Japanese associations in question actually organize the tournament. The same people organize the same tournament every year at the same date, and the same place. So, year after year, they build up experience in making the event better and better. And it also creates trust between the participants and the organizers.

The way the ICGA operates is that you rely on local organizers with no experience in organizing a WCCC. So it is a bit like participating in a new event every time. There is no such buildup of mutal confidence between participants and organizers. And some frustrating experiences of the past make people not want to try again. With the scandals and lack of participants in the past editions, the reputation of the WCCC has been eroded so much that I am afraid it will be difficult to motivate more programmers to attend.

Also, the main reason people have lost motivation might also be that chess is approaching a situation where there is little room for innovation any more, and game results are getting close to 100% draws. So it is normal that competing becomes less interesting. Computer Chess tournaments will certainly have to die soon for the same reason that Computer Othello died: the AlphaZero clones will all draw against each other.

Rémi

[Modern Times]

Hi Ulysses,

For any engine that we are not sure about we consult an impartial expert who has the capability to investigate thoroughly and advise us. If we receive an application from Houdini we will carry out such an investigation and publicize the results. Our decision regarding acceptance or otherwise would be based on that investigation.

David

What is the justification for publicising the results ?? If the engine author submits their programme before the tournament, you check it before the tournament starts and decide that it is not eligible, that is a private matter solely between you and the author, and no-one else. You communicate your decision to the author, end of story. You have no business telling the world why you won't permit an engine to participate. Tell the author yes, but no-one else.

I accept though that the situation would be very different if the investigation happens after the tournament and a disqualification is involved. Then there is a public record to be corrected and it needs to be corrected publicly.