World Chess Computer Champion?

[bob]

Komodo does not have a right to self proclaim itself with World Championship Status, because you or Komodo do not like how the ICGA runs its World Championship Events.

The "World Title" is vacant.

If you willfully kill rule number one in computer chess (strength) you lose the right.

In the end it's the public who decides.

If Komodo wants to claim the world championship title Ed. They need to play for that Title and win it.

If you are the organizer of a prestigious event, and the world championship is such an event, then you (as organizer) have the moral obligation to invest energy to attract the strongest players. If your (out-dated) rules prevent the strongest field possible then you no longer deserve the right to call your event a world championship.

So this is yet another "derivatives should be allowed" whine? On one hand, you have your "pledge" to not do this, on the other hand, you think derivatives should be welcome at WCCC events. Sort of hard to figure out exactly which side of the fence you are on any particular day.

[ouachita]

In summary, if you look at this situation objectively and neutrally, and regardless of whether or not you like or dislike LK or Komodo, Komodo's laying claim to the 2013 world championship is fine.

On the other hand, if you have some bias against LK or Komodo, or if you are biased and have some preference for and/or investment in some other engine(s), Komodo's laying claim to the 2013 world championship is not fine.

I'm firmly in the former camp. Although, if I were LK, I would clarify my position a bit. But that's just me.

[bob]

Last, regarding the subject line, if you know the story of Don and how hard he fought against his incurable disease looking in the face of death using his energy (or what was left) programming Komodo as a delay for the inevitable and then winning the hardest competition just before he died then I am perfectly okay with the sentiment of those who are left behind. It's a tribute to one of the best programmers. Let them.

The problem here seems to be that some of the people that have an axe to grind with ICGA seem so obsessed by this, that they have abandoned all moral restraints. Anything that would hurt ICGA, or those Chess-program authors that abided by its rules, is good and must be defended. No matter how criminal, morally corrupt, or disgusting it might be.

There is (was) no need for you to make things personal. You are wrong about my intentions as well.

There is only one way for the ICGA to survive and regain the legitime right to call themselves the representives of the vast majority of the chess programmers organizing a world championship. In case you did not noticed (or aren't willing to admit) there is a deep split among the chess programmers and the fans of CC, notable caused by the ICGA itself. As such I consider the word-title as vacant (the topic at hand) until they resolve the problems and unite the chess programmers, as it once was.

To establish that and restore the ICGA to its old glory days (note my intention) there need to be a change in leadership. It's obvious nothing is going to change with David in charge. It's time for him to leave and handover his responsibilities to people with a fresh look at the situation anno 2014, people who abandon old relic rules that did well till 10 years ago.

In the last "world championship" none of the participants were top-10 because for 2½ years the ICGA leadership did nothing to resolve the crisis among chess programmers. OTOH we have TCEC which is recognized by the top programmers and the fans. Why is it that what Martin can, David is unable?

You keep talking about "relic rules." Exactly WHICH programmers want to allow tournaments with no rules whatsoever about originality? Exactly WHICH programmers want to allow tournaments where 90% of the entrants (and eventually 100% as the rest become disgusted and quit) are based on either Stockfish or Robolito? Please name some names.

I can only speak for one person, ME. I do NOT want to enter such events. There seem to be many others that agree. So how about naming names for those that want to see the "relic rules" thrown out and allow anything that can play chess to enter, regardless of origin...

The only complainers I see regarding rule 2 are those that disagree with the Rybka decision. You complain that we "rushed to judgement" regarding Rybka/Fruit, but that we are "too slow" with loop/fruit. In short, the ICGA can do no right given your criteria.

[hgm]

But derivatives are allowed. Grid Chess was a Crafty / Toga derivative. It participated in the WCCC in Amsterdam.

Of course you, Fabien and the Toga derivator all gave their permission for this. What is not allowed is use other people's code without their explicit written permission, or dodge that rule by hiding the fact that you did use other people's code at all.

I think it would be an improvement if the existing ICGA rules where interpreted in such a way that the GPL constitutes such a written permission. In the sense of common law it already does. The nature of GPL projects is such that it is often impossible to figure out who exactly contributed to it, and I see no reason why that should bar such projects from competing in a WCCC.

Of course that would raise a problem if two entrants both wanted to make use of the same GPL code. But that problem is not different from when you gave two different developers permission to make use of the Crafty code for playing in the WCCC, and then one year after your unfortunate demise they both want to participate in the same year.

[IGarcia]

Are you implying competition in the Tour de France is not fair? The TdF is usually also broadcasted live...

I don't think you have a point. The TdF is just as fair or unfair as the UCI World Championship. It carries far more prestige. And no winner of the TdF ever proclaimed himself World Champion.

It is just not done. Not in any sport. Those who argue that it would be absolutely normal to do this in computer Chess seem completely out of touch with the world of sports in general.

I cant see a "Lance Armstrong" in TCEC, yes it was part of TdF 7 times winner and cheating.

BTW, you bring up this tour the France comparison. I was just speaking about an hypothetical fair competition, an improvisation on your "around the block tour".

TCEC is close to that hypothetical fair competition were an hypothetical world champion will be acclaimed.

My point in the very end: Is Hiarcs "your" world champion? Or its Komodo? Or it is Houdini 4? Maybe Stockfish?

Several people will have "their" world champion besides any official endorsement. Current IGCA means nothing "for me".

Regards, Ignacio.

[bob]

My only addition would be this: Rule 2 needs modification. But it does NOT need weakening. It simply needs to be extremely specific as to what is allowed and what is not. In fact, it should probably end up as a page of text that clearly and concisely addresses every point that has been raised in the past.

ie:

1. magic, egtb, etc code may be shared among all programs.

2. Specifically, no part of the code for search, the evaluation, move ordering, hashing, extensions or reductions, opening book move selection, learning <more specifics...> may be copied directly, indirectly, or whatever, in any form..

etc.

I think the rule is perfectly understandable as written, but apparently some can't extrapolate very well and want everything spelled out very specifically and precisely.

For the rest of your post, I agree. One can NOT force anyone to compete. The authors have earned the right to make that choice by the effort they expended to write the program in the first place. Whining about who didn't compete, and blaming the ICGA for that, is a bit of a stretch. The events are too long and expensive, for sure, and in years past the ICGA has allowed the commercial guys to exert a bit too much influence over the events and their duration. But anyone CAN compete. Nobody MUST compete. Whining about the latter is silly.

[hgm]

Well, Chess means little to me in the first place, so both WCCC and TCEC enjoy my complete disinterest.

Not sure what you intend by referring to Lance Armstrong. The Lance Armstrong of Computer Chess is obviously Rybka. I don't see how TCEC would be immune to an affair like that.

What if I would make a few changes in Stockfish, in particular the PST, (closing the code in violation of GPL), and entry it in TCEC under the name 'Impossible Heron' as a private engine. Would that not be exactly like 'pulling a Lance Armstrong' in TCEC? Or would you just consider that 'business as usual', and not really a violation of any competition rules?

[michiguel]

Komodo does not have a right to self proclaim itself with World Championship Status, because you or Komodo do not like how the ICGA runs its World Championship Events.

The "World Title" is vacant.

If you willfully kill rule number one in computer chess (strength) you lose the right.

In the end it's the public who decides.

If Komodo wants to claim the world championship title Ed. They need to play for that Title and win it.

If you are the organizer of a prestigious event, and the world championship is such an event, then you (as organizer) have the moral obligation to invest energy to attract the strongest players. If your (out-dated) rules prevent the strongest field possible then you no longer deserve the right to call your event a world championship.

So this is yet another "derivatives should be allowed" whine? On one hand, you have your "pledge" to not do this, on the other hand, you think derivatives should be welcome at WCCC events. Sort of hard to figure out exactly which side of the fence you are on any particular day.

You had been one of the biggest critics on how ICGA organized their Championships and how they stopped attracting engines, particularly when they stopped obeying their own charter regarding geographical requirements. You claimed that ICGA was over and CCT-like tournaments replaced them. Not very different from Ed is saying. Now, it seems TCEC got more recognition to replace both as the top tournament, but the concept is the same.

Whatever it is, ICGA is failing to attract players. A while ago, it started to fail to attract quantity, now it is quality.

Miguel
PS: Please, let's not get this into another R/F thread...

[michiguel]

Well, Chess means little to me in the first place, so both WCCC and TCEC enjoy my complete disinterest.

Not sure what you intend by referring to Lance Armstrong. The Lance Armstrong of Computer Chess is obviously Rybka. I don't see how TCEC would be immune to an affair like that.

What if I would make a few changes in Stockfish, in particular the PST, (closing the code in violation of GPL), and entry it in TCEC under the name 'Impossible Heron' as a private engine. Would that not be exactly like 'pulling a Lance Armstrong' in TCEC? Or would you just consider that 'business as usual', and not really a violation of any competition rules?

For the record, he tried, and obviously, Martin did not allow it.

Miguel

[hgm]

For the record, he tried, and obviously, Martin did not allow it.

So the actual Heron 'author' was rather stupid about it, and found out befre it began. Now suppose he would be slightly more clever, and submit Twinfish? Suppose he was already a known author, of a much weaker engine. Suppose he even was a real programmer rather than someone that knew how to operate a hex editor, and actually made some improvement to it...

What is so special now about TCEC that would make that this could never happen?