ICGA WCCC prospects ...

[bob]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

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.

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.

Fourteen against the _same_ opponent. Get the _significant_ difference between that and the WCCC event???

[bob]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

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.

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.

Good Post.

With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...

[Harvey Williamson]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

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.

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.

Good Post.

With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...

Why does the post need technical merit?

[Zach Wegner]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

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.

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.

Good Post.

With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...

Good post.

[Mike S.]

P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.

Fourteen against the _same_ opponent. Get the _significant_ difference between that and the WCCC event???

Not in this case Mexico 2007 was a double round robin with 8 participants:

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

By that I meant to say, a WCh. title doesn't require ultimate statistical relevance. The recent match Anand-Kramnik was scheduled for 12 games (11 were played including 7 draws). If we'd have a pair of engines with an estimated gap of +/- 30 or 35 Elo (like between Anand and Kramnik), computer chess fans would probably demand 1,000 games to be played, at least! They played 11 and Anand is the super hero of India. So much for statistics and world champion titles.

[IanO]

A WCCC with hardware limits is no "World Championship" at all.

[Damir]

Maybe ICGA should be named ICLGA= International Computer Limit Games Association. It suets it much better in my opinion.

[lexdom]

World championship are not designed to find which program is best.
There are not enough games for that purpose.
Uri

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.

IIRC there was a proposal to create a non-Rybka room in playchess although this is not due to the 40 core hardware.

[CThinker]

A WCCC with hardware limits is no "World Championship" at all.

Exactly!

Imagine people saying "What? That's the world champion? My home PC + Rybka is better than that. What does that make me?" LOL

[lexdom]

My home PC + Rybka is better than that. LOL

I'd say my home PC + Thinker is better