What engine is World computer chess champion?

[IGarcia]

Curious as to what engine 7 people voted "Other"?

If it's not a TCEC, ICGA or rating list topper?

Are there even stronger engines that no-one knows about?
And what claim do these "other" have for WCCC? Is there some secret competition we don't know about?

It is just the lack of an "undisputed" WCCC. So, the best option is "other".

Actually, I just wrote my own chess engine "Grailmaster 1.0", which consists of no code. I ran an official World Chess Computer Championship myself against selected engines (i.e. Moron 3.0 from Fern). My engine won convincingly by gentle adjudication 99:1. Therefore, I declare myself and my engine new WCCC. Also, my engine tops the ratinglist:

# Engine Elo
1. Grailmaster 1.0 +0
2. Moron 3.0 just 0

PGN is available on request.

WCCC-Champion regards,
Axel

So you used more lines to explain how your (non-code) engine is on top of your rating list than the engine itself ...

The 3rd option in this poll (rating list option) is for the ones considering the WCCC engine as the strongest engine, an not by a particular tournament.

Of course, you use the list you wish and consider most representative for your needing... so Hail Grailmaster!

Regards,
Ignacio.

[sicilianquake87]

Now, it may be that participants of the world championship tournament are not representative of the strongest programs. If this is something you really care strongly about (I don't, personally) then you can do two things: whinge and whine about it on-line that no one takes action to do something about it, or you get yourself involved and try to improve the situation, realising that someone else isn't going to solve the problem for you, and the best way to get things done is to get involved.

So if you disagree with the horses selected for a race, you can always whinge or whine about it or become a horse and run for yourself. Make sense! Ever considered the option of listening to what other people say instead?

[Evert]

So if you disagree with the horses selected for a race, you can always whinge or whine about it or become a horse and run for yourself. Make sense!

You either fail at comprehensive reading, or at drawing up analogies.

No, if you disagree with the horses selected for a race, you try to get involved with the selection process and do a better job. Or you sit back and bitch about it.

[sicilianquake87]

So if you disagree with the horses selected for a race, you can always whinge or whine about it or become a horse and run for yourself. Make sense!

You either fail at comprehensive reading, or at drawing up analogies.

No, if you disagree with the horses selected for a race, you try to get involved with the selection process and do a better job. Or you sit back and bitch about it.

Doesn't change a single comma. The whole approach of dealing with a problem becoming part of the people who created the problem itself it's not a realistic solution at all.

[fern]

You are a liar. Everyone knows that my Moron 3.0 won every game to yours and that concurrently you lost the bet with me ascending to 3000 bucks, which i expect to receive very soon or my Serbian body guards will collect the money.
It is your choice...

Fern

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

You are a liar. Everyone knows that my Moron 3.0 won every game to yours and that concurrently you lost the bet with me ascending to 3000 bucks, which i expect to receive very soon or my Serbian body guards will collect the money.
It is your choice...

Fern

Fern,

this is not the proper way of addressing the undisputed world champion. You could at least address me with "your highness...". Because it's your birthday I will not pursue penalties..

Here is the proof that my engine clearly won - fair and square. The pgn of the first 4 games:


[1] Grailmaster 1.0 (+0) - Moron 3.0 (just 0)
[Event "Official WCCC"]
[Site "Munich"]
[Date "2014.20.2"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Grailmaster 1.0"]
[Black "Moron 3.0"]
[TimeControl "TC"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO " "]

1. Interesting opening; however Moron does not understand anything. A Houdini/Komodo/Stockfish triple-brain analyses revealed that it is clearly a + 0.03 advantage for White. Basically, the mate is imminent and as such it was time to end the game. A convincing win of Grailmaster 1.0 in the first game.

[2] Moron 3.0 (just 0) - Grailmaster 1.0 (+0)
[Event "Official WCCC"]
[Site "Munich"]
[Date "2014.20.2"]
[Round "1.2"]
[White "Moron 3.0"]
[Black "Grailmaster 1.0"]
[TimeControl "TC"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO " "]

1. Moron has chosen a difficult opening-line, placing all of his pawns in the second row; probably too ambitious. The author clearly has to work on his book preparation. Grailmaster is quickly able to equalize. Both opponents are staring at each other, Moron looking like a - well a Moron. This is against the rules and the game is given to Grailmaster.



[3] Grailmaster 1.0 (+0) - Moron 3.0 (just 0)
[Event "Official WCCC"]
[Site "Munich"]
[Date "2014.20.2"]
[Round "2.1"]
[White "Grailmaster 1.0"]
[Black "Moron 3.0"]
[TimeControl "TC"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO " "]
1. Interestingly the engines repeat the same line as in the first game. Exactly the same position was also reached in the 1986 WC between Kasparov and Karpov. Kasparov won and so did Grailmaster. A beatiful game; superb.

[4] Moron 3.0 (just 0) - Grailmaster 1.0 (+0)
[Event "Official WCCC"]
[Site "Munich"]
[Date "2014.20.2"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Moron 3.0"]
[Black "Grailmaster 1.0"]
[TimeControl "TC"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO " "]
1. After some thinking, I could not follow this games anymore as I had to fetch a beer from the fridge, as such the game was adjudicated in a clearly winning position for Grailmaster. Draw accepted by the judge and a very lucky escape for Moron.

Fern: At least you got the second place, not so bad for you, eh?! Still better than all those foolish programmer amateurs here who have clearly no clue how to program a decent engine...

Axel
Undisputed WCCC-Champion 2014

[IanO]

I voted "other" because all of these have flaws for selecting a world champion.

1. The ICGA event is flawed in not being able to attract any of the top ten contenders, despite having the heritage and existing title. It is a separate discussion what needs to be done to remedy this. Personally, I think it should keep the same format but be held on a chess server, so physical attendance is not required. The ICGA could hold a separate chess event at the Computer Olympiad for conference attendees if they value physical presence.

2. TCEC has top engines and broad participation, but is more like a rating list in requiring a uniform platform and random shallow book lines. This excludes potential champions like Deep Blue (custom hardware) and Fritz (wrong protocol). Sorry, I believe book prep is an integral part of real championship chess. Not to mention automated book prep (with attendant opponent modeling) is still an unsolved problem worthy to be tackled at such an event.

3. Rating lists are rating lists. No one has ever been named World Champion from topping the FIDE list. It is a separate yet equally useful system.

[hgm]

Well, on-line does not seem to fare that much better than on-site. Take CCT16 as an example. True, Komodo was there. But that was about all. On average I would say the WCCC was a stronger tournament.

[bob]

I thought about this for a bit, and recalled some interesting factoids.

(1) best tennis player on the planet is named "#1 rank in world" by virtue of being on top of the professional tennis player rankings, which is based on all games played, not just one tournament.

(2) best golfer in the world is named "#1 player" by virtue of being on top of the professional golf list, again based on not just one tournament.

(3) really interesting cases happen in (say) NCAA basketball, where most conferences award a title "regular season conference champion" for the team with the best overall in-conference record, and then turn around and have a "conference championship" tournament to award whit is, on occasion, a SECOND conference champion in the same season.

There really is a difference between being #1 in world and winner of the Master's, or winner of the British Open, or whatever individual event is chosen. Most seem to want #1 to be on top of the rating list, AND win every tournament available. Not likely.

[fern]

I am afraid you are in an awful state of delirious tremend.
The games whose details you have posted appertain to a tournament celebrated in Baden Baden in 1904, where a predecessor of Moron prepared by my grand grand father, running in penciled notes, destroyed a similar program prepared by your gran grand father. You put it all in reverse.
As you know well, after the conclusion of the tournament, that Moron won 10-0, our grand grand fathers were involved in a quarrel in the middle of a ball and they went to a garden for a duel with pistols.
Both missed the shots and finished the night getting drunk and friendly in a bar.
Nevertheless, the result was the same: Moron won.
All this you can meet in a history book wrote by German scholar, Herr, otto Diesel, an important book for chess history called "Great games in Baden Baden 1904", not a great tittle but good enough
.You can find the book in the Vatican library.
I hope this leaves everything clear and please no more words about this issue.

Fern