ICGA WCCC prospects ...

[George Tsavdaris]

As a member of CCRL testing group, I however welcome the change, as it will result in WCCC losing any remaining relevance it still had, and my (and others) testing efforts will become more valued and appreciated.

Yes if the hardware limitation rule is eventually applied, then WCCC would be just another common tournament. We have plenty of those played all the year with all these lists.

And in fact it will be a completely poor in quality tournament with just 10-15 games. A joke in fact!
Compare this with the thousand games you, CEGT, SSDF, Sedat, etc play and WCCC becomes meaningless.

While until now in WCCC there always appeared hardware that is not common. Larger than usual and that gave it a special character.
Now they remove it, so they are killing it.

I think the best thing programmers(that share my opinion and it seems that they are the vast majority) should do is to boycott the WCCC for this year if this rule survives, and don't participate, in hope that ICGA will change its mind next year.

[diep]

Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill

In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.

My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.

They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.

We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.

All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.

It always has been PC's beating supercomputers. I want to beat big machines in 2009 world champs. Now if i would win, we are going to see a posting read by 100k people: "playing opponents at machines far inferior to what plays at chessbase server some program somewhere became world champion, but Fritz playing at 16 cores at chessbase is far stronger". Do you care about just yourself, tests you can conduct at home yourself, or do you care about those hundreds of thousands of chessplayers?

Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?

Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.

Vincent

[Harvey Williamson]

Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill

In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.

My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.

They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.

We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.

All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.

It always has been PC's beating supercomputers.

Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?

Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.

Vincent

I play Chess and I want it. Several of the programmers who take part in WCCC want it. It is also true that several do not. I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

[diep]

Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill

In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.

My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.

They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.

We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.

All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.

It always has been PC's beating supercomputers.

Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?

Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.

Vincent

I play Chess and I want it. Several of the programmers who take part in WCCC want it. It is also true that several do not. I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

You just speak for yourself.

You mean there is exactly 1 participant which wants it, namely hiarcs, a team which got for free 2 cpu's from intel, totalling 8 cores. by accident an amount of cores that is exactly the same like what intel sponsored you. Didn't you get 2 cpu's QX9775 for free?

Stefan MK is not against a 8 core limit. He'll show up also when it is open hardware. Would you not show up when it is open hardware?

"By accident" that's 2 programs with very ugly parallel search.

If you are not capable of keeping up with todays hardware there is no reason to impose upon hundreds of thousands the limit that the world champion is a champion at 8 cores.

Not a single normal sane chessplayer wants all these limits. I'm speaking for millions of chessplayers here.

They want to look at the best mankind can produce.

They don't want some world championship where someone picks a random position and then in kindergarten at a laptop with 8 cores you can play the world champs, somewhere in the dark, with no one watching.

Vincent

[Harvey Williamson]

Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill

In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.

My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.

They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.

We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.

All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.

It always has been PC's beating supercomputers.

Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?

Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.

Vincent

I play Chess and I want it. Several of the programmers who take part in WCCC want it. It is also true that several do not. I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

You just speak for yourself.

You mean there is exactly 1 participant which wants it, namely hiarcs, a team which got for free 2 cpu's from intel, totalling 8 cores.

Stefan MK is not against a 8 core limit.

"By accident" that's 2 programs with very ugly parallel search.

If you are not capable of keeping up with todays hardware there is no reason to impose upon hundreds of thousands the limit that the world champion is a champion at 8 cores.

Not a single normal sane chessplayer wants all these limits. I'm speaking for millions of chessplayers here.

They want to look at the best mankind can produce.

They don't want some world championship where someone picks a random position and then in kindergarten at a laptop with 8 cores you can play the world champs, somewhere in the dark, with no one watching.

Vincent

If you read what I said there are 4 who want it that regularly take part or there were at the time of levy's email unless you think he is a liar also? btw why did you lie about talking with Mark?

[chessfurby]

Mike you are like a fox... smart but not truly intelligent.

Tell me:

What good is a limit of 8 cores since there are only 2 or 3 peeps who can afford the very expensive skulltrail octa machines???? What good is a limit that is unreachable for the normal guys since those skulltrail octa machines cost 6000 ++ bugs... ?!?!?!?! You dont even have to start using your brain because... there IS no argument to justify the arbitrary number 8.

The only reason for _8_ would be that some few individuals already HAVE an octa. I am pretty sure they did everything in their power to make sure that they can use their expensive toys...

A |good| limit would have been 4 cores. 4 core machines are available for 400 to 500 Euros/ dollars. They are an absolute standard. However the skulltrails will NOT dropn in price over the next few months. Thus the limit is total bullshit, it does NOT do anything good.

Next problem:

You allow super rich snobs to participate with a 8000 ++ expensive skulltrail but at the same time you say "NO" to a programmer who adapted his engine to a small cluster... Take 4 cheap quadcores, each 400 Euros/ dollars. Connect them via network. Write good code and distribute the search effort on all 4 machines------ volia, a 16 core cluster.
For 2000 euros/ dollars max!

So... Levy allows supersnobby 10 grant machines and punishes the guys who try to improvise with much smaller and cheaper systems ?!?!?!?!?

There is no argument for that either.

[Harvey Williamson]

Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill

In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.

My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.

They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.

We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.

All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.

It always has been PC's beating supercomputers.

Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?

Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.

Vincent

I play Chess and I want it. Several of the programmers who take part in WCCC want it. It is also true that several do not. I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

You just speak for yourself.

You mean there is exactly 1 participant which wants it, namely hiarcs, a team which got for free 2 cpu's from intel, totalling 8 cores.

Stefan MK is not against a 8 core limit.

"By accident" that's 2 programs with very ugly parallel search.

If you are not capable of keeping up with todays hardware there is no reason to impose upon hundreds of thousands the limit that the world champion is a champion at 8 cores.

Not a single normal sane chessplayer wants all these limits. I'm speaking for millions of chessplayers here.

They want to look at the best mankind can produce.

They don't want some world championship where someone picks a random position and then in kindergarten at a laptop with 8 cores you can play the world champs, somewhere in the dark, with no one watching.

Vincent

If you read what I said there are 4 who want it that regularly take part or there were at the time of levy's email unless you think he is a liar also? btw why did you lie about talking with Mark?

Also btw the machine we played on in China was bought and paid for by a team member it was not free. Receipts can be provided I have previously posted a picture of it.

[pijl]

Reasonable limitations make such a tournament certainly more interesting for customers, users, and normal chess players, than something which is lightyears away from anything they have at home.

Right. That explains why F1 is so popular. Mercedes, BMW, Toyota etc use engines in their F1 cars that are within reach of the common public

But serious:
The programmers make the tournament. If there are no programmers there is no tournament. The programmers invest a lot of time (and money) into participating. If programmers have no fun, they will not participate and you will not have a tournament. So the opinion of the programmer's should come first.

I do not have a cluster program, nor do I own a big machine. Still I'm opposed to limiting the hardware. The main reasons are:

- The influence of 8+ processors on the tournament result is consistently exaggerated. It is not simple to get something out of the additional CPUs. And if you can, you've earned it as much as the programmer that used his time to improve eval and search.

- How will this limit be enforced? I can only see two methods:
1. Believe the programmer that he is not using more than 8 cores
2. Do not allow remote play.
The first method is unfair to the honest people
The second method is unfair to those that have heavy machines and don't live around the corner.

The last point will refrain me from participating if the playing location is not within driving distance.

Finally: I don't believe the nonsense that equal/limited hardware will be more interesting for spectators. As multiple persons already pointed out: There are other factors like the opening book that have much more influence on the results than the used hardware.
Richard.[/list]

[pijl]

I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

Since when is a tie between such a limited amount of programmers sufficient ground for changing something fundamental?
Richard.

[Harvey Williamson]

I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.

Since when is a tie between such a limited amount of programmers sufficient ground for changing something fundamental?
Richard.

Hi Richard,

That is an interesting question and surely one to be debated in the new forum Remi has set up.

Best Wishes,
Harvey