World Computer Chess Championship ?

[rlsuth]

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

The analogy has to do with "cheating to gain an edge".

.

[Don]

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

The analogy has to do with "cheating to gain an edge".

.

I like the doping analogy but my favorite analogy is the Rosie Ruiz Boston Marathon analogy as it's right on the money here. Her story is in Wikipedia, how she jumped into the last half mile of the race way ahead of the other runners and was declared winner until a lot of things did not add up. There are so many parallels here that it's not funny, such as her believing it would go completely unnoticed, her denials, her coming completely out of nowhere to win the Boston Marathon when nobody had every heard of her before and of course the classic thing that is always the case - even after they are busted they NEVER change their story - to this day she maintains that she run the entire marathon.

This is considered one of the biggest sporting scandals of all times - but after considering all the evidence objectively I am convinced that it really was a plot against her - cooked up out of jealousy. In fact a big part of the evidence against her was the TOP runners "claiming" they never saw her pass them. Of course they are going to say that, they were jealous of her! Someone else noticed that her legs were flabbier than a top runners legs should be. Since when is flabby legs proof of a lie? A freelance photography claimed to have met her and walked with her to the finish area before losing track of her, showing how deeply this unfair conspiracy ran. People were critical at how she did not seem tired, sweaty or out of breath, how unfair that being physically superior can be used against you like this.

[Houdini]

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

The analogy has to do with "cheating to gain an edge".

.

Yeah, like your other crazy analogies with "drug dealers" and "murderers" (see your post above)...
Computer chess forums have become a very toxic environment indeed.

[rlsuth]

Yeah, like your other crazy analogies with "drug dealers" and "murderers" (see your post above)...
Computer chess forums have become a very toxic environment indeed.

Yes, you would think every analogy was "crazy" if you cheated to gain an edge, wouldn't you? If you cant understand that plagiarizing someone elses work is breaking a law, usually to gain a financial edge, and should be opposed, even if it leads to someone gaining a "world championship, then you're not bright enough to have written Houdini from scratch and you're certainly not bright enough to understand analogies.

[Graham Banks]

......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......

How would you know that unless every engine was put under the same scrutiny as the chosen few?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Yeah, like your other crazy analogies with "drug dealers" and "murderers" (see your post above)...
Computer chess forums have become a very toxic environment indeed.

Yes, you would think every analogy was "crazy" if you cheated to gain an edge, wouldn't you? If you cant understand that plagiarizing someone elses work is breaking a law, usually to gain a financial edge, and should be opposed, even if it leads to someone gaining a "world championship, then you're not bright enough to have written Houdini from scratch and you're certainly not bright enough to understand analogies.

Richard,don't even bother answering this guy...he dosen't deserve the few clicks on the keyboard you made to write this reply....

Everyone knows where Houdini comes from....
Dr.D

[Houdini]

Yeah, like your other crazy analogies with "drug dealers" and "murderers" (see your post above)...
Computer chess forums have become a very toxic environment indeed.

Yes, you would think every analogy was "crazy" if you cheated to gain an edge, wouldn't you? If you cant understand that plagiarizing someone elses work is breaking a law, usually to gain a financial edge, and should be opposed, even if it leads to someone gaining a "world championship, then you're not bright enough to have written Houdini from scratch and you're certainly not bright enough to understand analogies.

Tournament organizers have the right to refuse any chess engine they want. It's perfectly OK to exclude some engines to avoid having too many similar engines.

But all this has got NOTHING to do with "cheating to gain an edge". Does Roberto Munter "cheat" when he decides to start from Ivanhoe for developing Vitrivius? He's doing nothing illegal nor unethical, he is not breaking any copyright or other law. This whole notion is preposterous, and your analogies with murder and drug dealing are strictly out of order.

Note also that Houdini does NOT violate any copyright nor other law. Your suggesting otherwise is libel. If you have a legal complaint about Houdini, you'll find my personal and company information on my web site.

What DOES constitute cheating - and is indeed *illegal* in most countries - is reverse engineering closed-source engines to improve your own engine. Curiously enough, the authors of Critter and Komodo have no problem with that and actively pursue this course. Yet they are universally applauded by the same people that are very vocal in this thread about cheating (probably including you). Go figure...

Robert

[Sedat Canbaz]

[quote="rodolfoleoni" I guess Cozzie released his first Zappa before than Fruit was released. And I've no reason to doubt both Cozzie and Letouzey worked on their engines from scratch.

Dear Rodolfo,

I think your guess is wrong

Right now I found some information at WBEC:

17/03/2004:Fruit 1.0,first release
18/10/2004:Zappa 1.1,first release

In other words,it seems Fabien and Anthony worked together as teams in 2004 year
Probably this is the main reason about why we see similarities between both engines

Best,
Sedat

Zappa 0.7 existed before Fruit 1.0 and was more than 100 elo stronger then.

Thanks Guenther

Actually i have a rating list based on early of 2000 years,but it seems i missed to test Zappa:
http://sedatchess.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_50

Best,
Sedat

[MM]

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?

If clones or derivates are allowed to to partecipate to the chess world championship we would have a ''real'' world champion, where for ''real'' is meant that the world champion is really the strongest engine in the world (clone or not).

This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, what is legal or not, what is ethical or not.

Take an engine, copy almost all of it, change it in order to make it 50 elo stronger than original...someone could say that is right, legal, ethical but anyway its programmer has a huge advantage to the other 100% original engines' programmers.

In The Tour de France sometimes it's impossible to know who is doped and who's not because everybody knows that doping goes faster than antidoping and today we have cyclers of the past, never banned, who admit to have used doping in the past. Someone is accused to be doped and perhaps he's not. Someone else is not accused of anything and perhaps he's doped.

The same for any other sport.

The question is not ''real or not real'', because, every time that some of all competitors don't partecipate, it's hard to say ''real''.

The question is: how do i know if an engine or an athlete is ok?'' and ''How do i set the rules to allow or not allow an engine/athlete to the competions?''

[michiguel]

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?

If clones or derivates are allowed to to partecipate to the chess world championship we would have a ''real'' world champion, where for ''real'' is meant that the world champion is really the strongest engine in the world (clone or not).

The WCCC is not really an engine competition, it is an authors competition, which may involve a team, book creation, hardware adjustment (e.g. clusters) etc. If anybody wants to know what the strongest engine is in their PC, they have the rating lists.

IMHO, the lack of participation also has not much to do with ICGA. The alleged top engines that are absent from the ICGA tournaments, they have not been showing too much in CCT or ACCA either.

Miguel

This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, what is legal or not, what is ethical or not.

Take an engine, copy almost all of it, change it in order to make it 50 elo stronger than original...someone could say that is right, legal, ethical but anyway its programmer has a huge advantage to the other 100% original engines' programmers.

In The Tour de France sometimes it's impossible to know who is doped and who's not because everybody knows that doping goes faster than antidoping and today we have cyclers of the past, never banned, who admit to have used doping in the past. Someone is accused to be doped and perhaps he's not. Someone else is not accused of anything and perhaps he's doped.

The same for any other sport.

The question is not ''real or not real'', because, every time that some of all competitors don't partecipate, it's hard to say ''real''.

The question is: how do i know if an engine or an athlete is ok?'' and ''How do i set the rules to allow or not allow an engine/athlete to the competions?''