World Computer Chess Championship ?

[Carotino]

@Adam, Marco:

My, it was a metaphor a little strong (maybe too strong). Sometimes I exaggerate, but I'm not evil.

I am out of the game ("my" program is blatantly Ippo-derived), but the point is that Ippolit was like an atomic bomb. It has completely changed, perhaps unwittingly, all muffled world of chess engines.

Who would have imagined only a few months before, the disqualification of Rybka? Ippolit has opened a Pandora's box: they all pointed the finger of blame, but the content was too juicy... So, the other hand, came secretly into the vase, and took something hidden.
If someone wants to deny this, or is blind or a liar.... And then I say it is absurd to speak of original engines to 100%. All were splashed. We can say that Rybka / Ippolit are now the "original sin" in the world of chess engines.

[Don]

I think Marco objects to calling the recent ICGA chess tournament a "world championship", while calling all of its other (and more thriving) tournaments "olympiads" (which is funny because those are yearly events and thus not olympiads). Their chess tournament is not a world championship of course, because for that the computer chess community needs to accept it as such at that is not the case anymore. The real competition in computer chess is at the rating lists, not at the associations.

Well, the computer-chess comunity I know considers it a World Championship... That there is a bunch of vocal clowns around that like to tell others what they should do but are not much good for anything else doesn't alter that.

Rating lists have nothing to do with World Championships. Name me one sport where the World Champion is chosen based on rating lists. Certainly not in soccer. Or cycling. Or ice skating. Or boxing. Or hockey...

I agree with you HG but I think there is at least one exception:

In tennis they put a lot of weight on rankings even though they have the 4 grand slam tournaments. There is no world champion or progressive system for working your way up to some final victory. Of the 4 grand slam events I believe most people consider Wimbledon the premiere one, and commentators have sometimes hyped it as being the defacto world championship, but that is nonsense since any of the grand slam events are sometimes won by surprising under-dogs. I remember Pat Cash beating Lendl to win the tournament way back in 1987 when Lendl was the undisputed best player in the world and Pat Cash was good but nothing special - he was something like the 10th or 11th seed - not the guy anyone would have picked to win the tournament and especially not the guy anyone would have considered the "top" player.

However, having said that, the concept of a world champion is an important one and the only reason there are issues with participation is because people have become zombie couch potato's and have gotten way too comfortable locked away in their rooms with their computers. More and more people are getting uncomfortable having to actually interact with real people unless they can hide behind a computer screen. I'm not ranting, this is a clearly documented social phenomenon and seen as a very negative one and it's clearly reflected in the drop in attendance of these events.

[rlsuth]

I guess all sporting events should allow participants to take whatever drugs they like too, because they perform better than athletes who try to compete fairly...... and we should stop prosecuting thieves, and drug dealers, because they make more money than people who work honestly..... and we should stop putting murderers away too, because hey, it's survival of the fittest and they survived whereas their victims didn't. Makes sense to me, lets just get rid of all the laws on the books and let society go where ever a lawless society will go. After all, people will still invent, and produce expensive products, even if they don't get paid for them, but somebody who steals their ideas/hard work, makes a fortune. Right?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I guess all sporting events should allow participants to take whatever drugs they like too, because they perform better than athletes who try to compete fairly...... and we should stop prosecuting thieves, and drug dealers, because they make more money than people who work honestly..... and we should stop putting murderers away too, because hey, it's survival of the fittest and they survived whereas their victims didn't. Makes sense to me, lets just get rid of all the laws on the books and let society go where ever a lawless society will go. After all, people will still invent, and produce expensive products, even if they don't get paid for them, but somebody who steals their ideas/hard work, makes a fortune. Right?

Sounds good to me

[hgm]

Of course we would never have a ''real'' world champion, but at least, we would have a 100% original world champion.

I don't get this. The Tour de France is not a 'real' Tour de France because doped cyclists are not allowed to participate, and we all know they are way faster than those that ride clean. The Olympics are not 'real' Olympics because doped athletes are banned, and we all know Ben Johnson ran faster than anyone else...

What kind of logic is that?

[Don]

Ok this arrogant and fossilized organization called ICGA really made me get angry and I looked a bit in their site to know a bit more about them. Apart that it really seems "dead and buried", last interesting content is years ago old, I was really impressed by what they call: "World Computer Chess Championship" , the last edition of this farsa was in 2011 and below the list of participants:

You can have a civil discussion about the merits or lack of merit, but you shoot yourself in the foot if you start right out ranting - it makes it appear that your arguments are purely based on emotion and that you have chosen your side based on fashion. You are clearly trying to appeal to people who don't think for themselves - that they should belong to a more progressive way of thinking and reject the "old ways." This is an argument that has huge appeal to the young and inexperienced but it doesn't carry any weight for thinking people who have to wade through all your emotional language to find the content, if there is any. You lose that audience immediately because you have already telegraphed to them that there is no objectivity. You can be correct even if you are not objective but it's much less likely to be so when it's obvious you are not.

Your first sentence contained the words, "arrogant", "fossilized", and "angry" so you lost me already.

By the way, have you gone off the deep end? Taking drugs or did your girlfriend dump you or something? You seem to have suddenly become a different person, worthy of a Jerry Springer episode.

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/t ... php?id=239

Code: Select all

1	Junior	
2	Hiarcs	
2	Shredder	
4	Pandix	
4	Jonny		
6	The Baron	
7	Booot	
8	Rookie3.4	
9	Woodpusher 1997

Now the first question that comes to my mind is to what "world" they refer in the title of the event ? Mars ? Underwater world ? Surely not chess engines landscape in 2011, this is clear even to the dumbest. So how they have the presumption to call this marketing event, for the only benefit of legacy commercial engines, "World Computer Chess Championship" ? Because of historical reasons ? Sorry, this is not enough IMHO.

Nobody of the authors of the above listed engines (at least the ones I know, there are less known engines I don't know the authors) participates in forums, shares ideas / comments (even not talking about code), contributes in any way (again, I am talking of 2012) to chess engine community.

My opinion of Robet Houdart's Houdini is well known and I have publicly stated many times that I don't second many of his choices, nevertheless I value his contribution to this community much higher than everybody in that list. I have took Houdini example because it is considered the posterchild of "the evil clone" by many, and with this I want to highlight that even the most discussed characters contribute more than that live museum of pretending guys: I am not talking of the engine authors (which I respect all) but of the organization that shameless call itself "computer chess world" !

[Don]

Of course we would never have a ''real'' world champion, but at least, we would have a 100% original world champion.

I don't get this. The Tour de France is not a 'real' Tour de France because doped cyclists are not allowed to participate, and we all know they are way faster than those that ride clean. The Olympics are not 'real' Olympics because doped athletes are banned, and we all know Ben Johnson ran faster than anyone else...

What kind of logic is that?

What difference does it make? There is a procedure to determine who the world champion is and there is. It should not be open the cheaters and copiers and it isn't. So just let them rant, cooler heads have prevailed.

[Houdini]

I don't get this. The Tour de France is not a 'real' Tour de France because doped cyclists are not allowed to participate, and we all know they are way faster than those that ride clean. The Olympics are not 'real' Olympics because doped athletes are banned, and we all know Ben Johnson ran faster than anyone else...

What kind of logic is that?

I don't get this very strange "doping" analogy. How can a chess engine be "doped"?
The only thing similar to doping in computer chess is when an engine runs on much faster hardware than the competing engines, making the tournament more a test of financial power than of skill.

Robert

[mcostalba]

You can have a civil discussion about the merits or lack of merit, but you shoot yourself in the foot if you start right out ranting - it makes it appear that your arguments are purely based on emotion and that you have chosen your side based on fashion.

Thanks for trying to mentoring me, but I have not request your help, guess what, I can write my posts all alone!

that they should belong to a more progressive way of thinking and reject the "old ways."

This is really your mantra...but it is all in your head. I don't reject "old ways", I have simply stated that the so called "World Computer Chess Championship" is misnamed now days.

Your first sentence contained the words, "arrogant", "fossilized", and "angry" so you lost me already.

Never pretended to "get you". This is how I feel and what I think. It is "emotional" ? Yes, thank you, it is a compliment for me because emotional does not means silly or baseless. It has another meaning and it is not a bad one in my view.

By the way, have you gone off the deep end? Taking drugs or did your girlfriend dump you or something? You seem to have suddenly become a different person, worthy of a Jerry Springer episode.

Well, not exactly an example of "being on the topic" here You wrote me that I should not be emotional and then you come out with this pearl.

BTW there is also some content in my "emotional rant", I guess you can find it if you read it without prejudice. Instead I don't find any "on topic" content in your post, but this is not a problem to me, I like emotional people.

[Don]

Of course we would never have a ''real'' world champion, but at least, we would have a 100% original world champion.

I don't get this. The Tour de France is not a 'real' Tour de France because doped cyclists are not allowed to participate, and we all know they are way faster than those that ride clean. The Olympics are not 'real' Olympics because doped athletes are banned, and we all know Ben Johnson ran faster than anyone else...

What kind of logic is that?

I like the analogy to doping by the way it's very relevant here. I have enjoyed playing tennis all my life but I'm not very good. I wish I could be doped with genetic material from the some of the great players so that I could play just like them. Use their talent and skill to make up for a lack of my own.

Don