hgm wrote:MM wrote: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?''