Fourteen against the _same_ opponent. Get the _significant_ difference between that and the WCCC event???Mike S. wrote:Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.bob wrote: The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.
You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.
Btw. what would that research be for, if the people doing it would not care for these groups mentioned? That seems like saying, I do medicine research but I don't care for diseased patients. Fortunately, computer chess advances have achieved practical goals and have led to useful products.
Do you dislike it, that computer chess is not restricted to the academic world anymore?
Also, I don't want the WCCC to try to find the strongest engine. I know that the few games of a WCCC are not statistically meaningful. But I don't see a contradiction here, with my other suggestions. A title is not important because he would be statistically meaningful, which it is not, but a title has a "real world" value, ideational and sometimes material.
Please don't get me wrong, but some of your opinions would make more sense to me, if all chess programmers of the world would be professors, and none of them would need to sell anything, and access to big hardware would not be a problem for any of them.
P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.
ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...Harvey Williamson wrote:Good Post.Mike S. wrote:Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.bob wrote: The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.
You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.
Btw. what would that research be for, if the people doing it would not care for these groups mentioned? That seems like saying, I do medicine research but I don't care for diseased patients. Fortunately, computer chess advances have achieved practical goals and have led to useful products.
Do you dislike it, that computer chess is not restricted to the academic world anymore?
Also, I don't want the WCCC to try to find the strongest engine. I know that the few games of a WCCC are not statistically meaningful. But I don't see a contradiction here, with my other suggestions. A title is not important because he would be statistically meaningful, which it is not, but a title has a "real world" value, ideational and sometimes material.
Please don't get me wrong, but some of your opinions would make more sense to me, if all chess programmers of the world would be professors, and none of them would need to sell anything, and access to big hardware would not be a problem for any of them.
P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.
-
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:12 pm
- Location: Whitchurch. Shropshire, UK.
- Full name: Harvey Williamson
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Why does the post need technical merit?bob wrote:With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...Harvey Williamson wrote:Good Post.Mike S. wrote:Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.bob wrote: The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.
You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.
Btw. what would that research be for, if the people doing it would not care for these groups mentioned? That seems like saying, I do medicine research but I don't care for diseased patients. Fortunately, computer chess advances have achieved practical goals and have led to useful products.
Do you dislike it, that computer chess is not restricted to the academic world anymore?
Also, I don't want the WCCC to try to find the strongest engine. I know that the few games of a WCCC are not statistically meaningful. But I don't see a contradiction here, with my other suggestions. A title is not important because he would be statistically meaningful, which it is not, but a title has a "real world" value, ideational and sometimes material.
Please don't get me wrong, but some of your opinions would make more sense to me, if all chess programmers of the world would be professors, and none of them would need to sell anything, and access to big hardware would not be a problem for any of them.
P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.
-
- Posts: 1922
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:51 am
- Location: Earth
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Good post.bob wrote:With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...Harvey Williamson wrote:Good Post.Mike S. wrote:Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.bob wrote: The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.
You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.
Btw. what would that research be for, if the people doing it would not care for these groups mentioned? That seems like saying, I do medicine research but I don't care for diseased patients. Fortunately, computer chess advances have achieved practical goals and have led to useful products.
Do you dislike it, that computer chess is not restricted to the academic world anymore?
Also, I don't want the WCCC to try to find the strongest engine. I know that the few games of a WCCC are not statistically meaningful. But I don't see a contradiction here, with my other suggestions. A title is not important because he would be statistically meaningful, which it is not, but a title has a "real world" value, ideational and sometimes material.
Please don't get me wrong, but some of your opinions would make more sense to me, if all chess programmers of the world would be professors, and none of them would need to sell anything, and access to big hardware would not be a problem for any of them.
P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.
-
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:33 am
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Not in this case Mexico 2007 was a double round robin with 8 participants:bob wrote:Fourteen against the _same_ opponent. Get the _significant_ difference between that and the WCCC event???Mike S. wrote:P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.
Code: Select all
WCh Mexico City MEX 2007
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Anand,V 2792 +56 ** ½½ ½½ ½½ 1½ ½1 1½ 1½ 9.0/14
2 Kramnik,V 2769 +30 ½½ ** ½½ ½1 ½½ 10 ½1 ½½ 8.0/14 54.50
3 Gelfand,B 2733 +71 ½½ ½½ ** ½½ ½½ 1½ 11 ½0 8.0/14 54.25
4 Leko,P 2751 0 ½½ ½0 ½½ ** ½½ ½1 0½ ½1 7.0/14
5 Svidler,P 2735 -5 0½ ½½ ½½ ½½ ** 0½ ½½ ½1 6.5/14
6 Morozevich,A 2758 -57 ½0 01 0½ ½0 1½ ** ½½ 01 6.0/14 41.25
7 Aronian,L 2750 -47 0½ ½0 00 1½ ½½ ½½ ** ½1 6.0/14 39.75
8 Grischuk,A 2726 -46 0½ ½½ ½1 ½0 ½0 10 ½0 ** 5.5/14
Regards, Mike
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:45 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
A WCCC with hardware limits is no "World Championship" at all.
-
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Full name: Damir Desevac
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Maybe ICGA should be named ICLGA= International Computer Limit Games Association. It suets it much better in my opinion.
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
I agree. The purpose of limiting hardware it not find the best program but to give a chance to other commercial engines to claim the title. There's a perception that a 40 core Rybka practically eliminates the chances of other commercials. Commercial engines need to put "World Champion" on their boxes or in this case websites.Uri Blass wrote: World championship are not designed to find which program is best.
There are not enough games for that purpose.
Uri
IIRC there was a proposal to create a non-Rybka room in playchess although this is not due to the 40 core hardware.
-
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:08 pm
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
Exactly!IanO wrote:A WCCC with hardware limits is no "World Championship" at all.
Imagine people saying "What? That's the world champion? My home PC + Rybka is better than that. What does that make me?" LOL
Re: ICGA WCCC prospects ...
I'd say my home PC + Thinker is betterCThinker wrote: My home PC + Rybka is better than that. LOL