ICGA WCCC prospects ...

[George Tsavdaris]

By that I meant to say, a WCh. title doesn't require ultimate statistical relevance.

Indeed. It requires the best every participant can give of itself.
And by limiting the hardware we restrict participants.

You avoided to answer to several posts here and i guess it is because you couldn't. Because these posts exploited how ridiculous are most of these you were saying.

•Jens excellent post for example.
Not make me to repeat it it's at the end of this topic. In short what he says is that as all of you say this rule is for leveling competition to software that all can buy so there are no injustices. But is a 8 core Skulltrail really cheap for all? Let's get real. No!
If they wanted a hardware that all can afford they should put the limit to 4 cores. They didn't.

He pointed out also another valid argument about how expensive a cluster can really be. Not too much it's the truth. So we don't have all that stupid statements of astronomical hardware etc.


•I also said that this is a "World Computer Chess Championship" and NOT a "World Engines Chess Championship" that you want to transform it with your limiting rules.
Computer Chess player means hardware CPU/RAM/HDD plus software(engine), plus data files like learning, opening books, EGTBs etc.

And every team in a WCCC has to have the best possible combination of these it can get. This is how World Champions work. And fair and unfair rules are meaningless to even discuss. If you can't buy a 80 core machine and some other can, so be it. Why the rest should care?
World champs are for the best and not for the whiners.

•Dr. Hyatt also made many many excellent points rejecting your and ICGA arguments but they had been ignored by you. They haven't been answered.
I know why of course. There can't be no argument to disprove that sun rises from the east.

So much for statistics and world champion titles.

Kasparov in his days was crushing everyone. So do you propose when he went in a tournament, the tournament officials should restrict him in any way because his extraordinary abilities of playing Chess that were better than the others?
For example as we can't remove him any part of him obviously as in computers, would it make sense to restrict him in thinking less time from his opponents to level competition?

All these make no sense at all for me and for MOST people as i read here, in Rybkaforum, in ICGA forum and in every place i have read about it.
I have created 2 polls one here and one in Rybka forum.
Results are here:
81% here want an unlimited tournament while 17% a limited one.
Results in Rybkaforum are:
62% want an unlimited tournament while 35% a limited one.

In ICGA so far i see 7 programmers want an unlimited tournament and 0(zero) a limited one.
By reading also here the opinions of programmers that didn't add their opinion to ICGA forum, i can add 7 more programmers that are in favor of unlimited tournament.

So can we say is the rule change logical?
Conclusions are yours.

[Jeroen]

Not really a good name, as in the game Go unlimited hardware is still permitted (as well as in other games). Guess why

[bob]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.

You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.

Btw. what would that research be for, if the people doing it would not care for these groups mentioned? That seems like saying, I do medicine research but I don't care for diseased patients. Fortunately, computer chess advances have achieved practical goals and have led to useful products.

Do you dislike it, that computer chess is not restricted to the academic world anymore?

Also, I don't want the WCCC to try to find the strongest engine. I know that the few games of a WCCC are not statistically meaningful. But I don't see a contradiction here, with my other suggestions. A title is not important because he would be statistically meaningful, which it is not, but a title has a "real world" value, ideational and sometimes material.

Please don't get me wrong, but some of your opinions would make more sense to me, if all chess programmers of the world would be professors, and none of them would need to sell anything, and access to big hardware would not be a problem for any of them.

P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.

Good Post.

With no technical merit as applied to the current debate however...

Why does the post need technical merit?

To justify the utterly stupid proposal being discussed for the WCCC, that's why...

[bob]

P.S. When Anand became world champion in the tournament in Mexico 2007, the number of games was fourteen.

Fourteen against the _same_ opponent. Get the _significant_ difference between that and the WCCC event???

Not in this case Mexico 2007 was a double round robin with 8 participants:

Code: Select all

WCh Mexico City MEX  2007

                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  
1   Anand,V       2792   +56  ** ½½ ½½ ½½ 1½ ½1 1½ 1½   9.0/14
2   Kramnik,V     2769   +30  ½½ ** ½½ ½1 ½½ 10 ½1 ½½   8.0/14  54.50
3   Gelfand,B     2733   +71  ½½ ½½ ** ½½ ½½ 1½ 11 ½0   8.0/14  54.25
4   Leko,P        2751     0  ½½ ½0 ½½ ** ½½ ½1 0½ ½1   7.0/14
5   Svidler,P     2735    -5  0½ ½½ ½½ ½½ ** 0½ ½½ ½1   6.5/14
6   Morozevich,A  2758   -57  ½0 01 0½ ½0 1½ ** ½½ 01   6.0/14  41.25
7   Aronian,L     2750   -47  0½ ½0 00 1½ ½½ ½½ ** ½1   6.0/14  39.75
8   Grischuk,A    2726   -46  0½ ½½ ½1 ½0 ½0 10 ½0 **   5.5/14

By that I meant to say, a WCh. title doesn't require ultimate statistical relevance. The recent match Anand-Kramnik was scheduled for 12 games (11 were played including 7 draws). If we'd have a pair of engines with an estimated gap of +/- 30 or 35 Elo (like between Anand and Kramnik), computer chess fans would probably demand 1,000 games to be played, at least! They played 11 and Anand is the super hero of India. So much for statistics and world champion titles.

Not to choose "the world champion..."

[bob]

A WCCC with hardware limits is no "World Championship" at all.

The argument is hopeless. This comes up _every_ year. It has since the 1970's. Fortunately, up until now, wiser "heads" made rational decisions. My take on it is "who cares?" The CCT events are much more interesting, with far more participants, games played in public (unlike the WCCC which can't even provide timely updates on game status). Etc...

Let 'em change what they want, I quit going when it stopped alternating between Europe and North America... So it really doesn't matter to me at all, other than the small detail that I was a charter member of the ICCA (now ICGA) and hate to see it run into the ground as has been happening for the past 10 years or so...

[bob]

Not really a good name, as in the game Go unlimited hardware is still permitted (as well as in other games). Guess why

Just change the definition of the "I" in ICGA, from "international" to "idiotic" and voila'... problem solved...

[Mike S.]

Why does the post need technical merit?

To justify the utterly stupid proposal being discussed for the WCCC, that's why...

I don't think that my considerations and arguments, and more important Levy's, are so implausible. Some will agree, some not. Maybe there is a silent majority at the moment (and maybe even amongst programmers). Let's wait and see...

Around 1980, top computer chess was an academical toy a few dozen of people had access to only, and chess masters laughed about it. I know: fundamental research was being done. But computer chess has changed a lot (if you like it or not), and in my opinion for the better, with mass availability, grandmasters respecting and using it, etc. Concepts and regulations for a WCCC which were suitable in 1980, are almost certainly flawed, at least in part, in 2009. You have just mentioned one point, or proposal yourself, playing by automatic interfaces without human intervention.

I have the impression that you are not often trying to see things through the eyes of others. Also, you seem to dismiss arguments too easily, if they do not come from a programmer. - In the moment the first Fidelity Chess Challenger was sold, computer chess was not an exclusive sector controlled by a few computer scientists anymore. You personally don't need a large audience or fanbase, and maybe you'd prefer to not have it (by large I mean 100,000+ people of all sorts, not just 20 programmers). But obviously, for Uniacke, Meyer-Kahlen, Lang, Rajlich, etc. many people interested in their programs are not only pleasant, but even vital.

(I will post an idea for a hardware limit compromise in a extra thread, although I doubt myself that it's realistic. In short, two entries per participant allowed, and two titles: 1. unlimited, 2. uniform platform.)

[Mike S.]

Not to choose "the world champion..."

That is another discussion... It WAS FIDE's tournament to find the FIDE world chess champion, during the process of reunification. Alternatively, I could have used the 1948 world championship tournament as an example for the same, where only five participants played 20 games, each.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

The problem is, we don't care about customers, users or normal chess players.

Yes, that is in fact a problem. I think you tell me your opinion, but would for example SMK, who lives from programming and selling chess software, sign this? On the first page of his online shop, he shows the list of Shredder's world champion titles. I'm not sure if you get my point.

You cannot isolate a WCCC from it's audience (that is why I made the satirical "secret bunker" remark). In the very moment when customers, users or normal chess players are interested in a WCCC, it is NOT only about computer chess research anymore.

What do you think the audience (=customers) prefer, a tournament they can run at home? [1]

Or a real World Championship between the very best?

What they will get now is a tournament of unequally crippled. I am sure we were all waiting for that.

[1] If you answer yes here, we obviously dont need to go to Spain to do that.

[bob]

Why does the post need technical merit?

To justify the utterly stupid proposal being discussed for the WCCC, that's why...

I don't think that my considerations and arguments, and more important Levy's, are so implausible. Some will agree, some not. Maybe there is a silent majority at the moment (and maybe even amongst programmers). Let's wait and see...

Around 1980, top computer chess was an academical toy a few dozen of people had access to only, and chess masters laughed about it. I know: fundamental research was being done. But computer chess has changed a lot (if you like it or not), and in my opinion for the better, with mass availability, grandmasters respecting and using it, etc. Concepts and regulations for a WCCC which were suitable in 1980, are almost certainly flawed, at least in part, in 2009. You have just mentioned one point, or proposal yourself, playing by automatic interfaces without human intervention.

Apples and oranges. The rules about _how_ the event is played is one thing, and that has been refined almost every year. The rules about _what_ can participate has always been "use what you want". That has _never_ changed, and should not. There are more than enough uniform-platform ratings around (SSDF/CCRL to name two that are well-known and well-respected) that I see no justification for tuning this event into that sort of tournament. We _already_ know how the programs stack up against each other, with thousands of games for evidence. So what does a WCCC with 9-11 rounds show us that the CCRL/SSDF lists do not? Currently, it shows what is possible with leading-edge hardware, hardware that has driven program development in different directions over the years in order that they can use that hardware. Everyone was on my case years ago for "who cares about parallel search, home computers will never have more than one CPU." We know where that stands today as you almost can't buy a single-processor machine and in another 2 years you won't be able to buy one. Clusters? The same thing will happen there. Stifling development of leading edge hardware/software systems makes no sense.

At least to a "programmer". And that is what the WCCC/ICCA was originally formed to serve, not users...

I have the impression that you are not often trying to see things through the eyes of others. Also, you seem to dismiss arguments too easily, if they do not come from a programmer. - In the moment the first Fidelity Chess Challenger was sold, computer chess was not an exclusive sector controlled by a few computer scientists anymore. You personally don't need a large audience or fanbase, and maybe you'd prefer to not have it (by large I mean 100,000+ people of all sorts, not just 20 programmers). But obviously, for Uniacke, Meyer-Kahlen, Lang, Rajlich, etc. many people interested in their programs are not only pleasant, but even vital.

(I will post an idea for a hardware limit compromise in a extra thread, although I doubt myself that it's realistic. In short, two entries per participant allowed, and two titles: 1. unlimited, 2. uniform platform.)