World Chess Computer Champion?

[jhellis3]

The only problem I see with claiming the title World Champion XXXX based off of TCEC is that I think it is to be a bi-annual event (going forward).

I would keep the wording simply TCEC Champion XXXX, and let people interpret that is they may. If the authors consider it the de facto WCSC, then a small explanation as to what it is and why is sufficient and fine.

The link on Komodo's page is dead... should probably just point to the TCEC wikipedia entry anyway.

[bob]

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.

There is a caveat for that. For example, take A, an original program that is open-source, and B, a program that was derived from A. B CAN enter WCCC events with the permission of A's author. B would NOT be allowed if A was also entered.

I am not quite sure how GPL would be used to deal with the case of A and B both wanting to enter. The intent has always been one program from a single author (or team of authors).

[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.

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...

WCCC/CCT events are for the authors. TCEC is not. They serve two different roles, completely. I do not consider TCEC as the WCCC. I've always considered a "computer chess player" to be the sum of the source code, the hardware, and the opening book. TCEC doesn't exactly fill that bill. It is fine for those that want some sort of "equality" in hardware and book, and just see how the engines do regardless of the opening that is chosen. WCCCs have never been about equal hardware, neutral books, etc.

[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?

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

But did it occur to you that this failure to attract participants is exactly because it is a World Championship?

Somewhat over a year ago Peter Skinner tried to organize an 'On-Line Computer-Chess World Championship', with rules that were assumed to repair what was wrong with the ICGA rules. (More games to eliminate the influence of luck, more lenient policy towards derivatives, no expensive travel.) There was exactly one entrant...

Some think that their commercial interests are better served by not participating and then denying that the event had any validity, because of their absence, rather than run the risk to be defeated.

[sicilianquake87]

Some think that their commercial interests are better served by not participating and then denying that the event had any validity, because of their absence, rather than run the risk to be defeated.

Others are most willing to participate because they know nobody will fill a complaint form to ICGA against them and after an easy-as-a-pie tournament they can sell their engine to Chessbase and on their personal websites.

[hgm]

There is a caveat for that. For example, take A, an original program that is open-source, and B, a program that was derived from A. B CAN enter WCCC events with the permission of A's author. B would NOT be allowed if A was also entered.

I am not quite sure how GPL would be used to deal with the case of A and B both wanting to enter. The intent has always been one program from a single author (or team of authors).

Sure, one can imagine some conflicts. The same code should not be allowed to participate twice. But it can be left at the discretion of the organizers to decide what to do. It is not sure this would ever be a problem in practice, and it seems silly to base your policies on hypothetical problems.

To me it would not be obvious that A would have priority over B, if B was known to be stronger. If the author of A would have wanted to keep the rights to veto the sue others want to make of his code, he should not have GPL'ed it. The GPL actually forbids putting any restrictions on the use of the code altogether, other than publishing the source. So the restriction "you cannot enter this code in a WCCC unless I say so" seems illegal.

If cases like this would occur, the organizers can for instance make the teams that want to use the same piece of code take turns: if A participated in one event, the next year B would have priority over A. In case neither of them ever participated, take the strongest according to rating lists, or simply draw straws. It doesn't sound like an unworkable method at all.

[hgm]

Others are most willing to participate because they know nobody will fill a complaint form to ICGA against them and after an easy-as-a-pie tournament they can sell their engine to Chessbase and on their personal websites.

That is good, right? We want people to participate. The reason does not really matter. The more reasons, the better.

We are worrying here about why people do not participate when something is called a World Championship.

[mjlef]

I am not sure how this has evolved. That at chess program can self proclaim itself with World Championship Status.

http://komodochess.com/

From the Komodo site.

"2013 World Chess Engine Champion!"

What is strange about the Komodo claim and as far as I know. TCEC has never claimed itself with any kind of World Computer Chess Champion Status.

We have a WCCC history and a 2013 World Computer Champion and it is not Komodo.

http://icga.uvt.nl/wp-uploads/conferenc ... 202013.pdf

From ICGA
Final
standing 2013:

1. and World Champion Software Hiarcs.

Under Komodo's logic of claiming World Championship Status. Houdini 4 could also claim itself to be the World Computer Chess Engine Champion, because like TCEC. CCRL also is a rating list and performs tournaments to rate chess programs. And Right now Houdini 4 is the best chess engine on the CCRL list. And CCRL plays more programs and plays far more games then TCEC.

I would ask that people visit the web site and read what is there. Some comments:

The title of this thread is misleading. We make no claim that Komodo has won the World Computer Chess Championship. And that is not on our website. The title talks about chess engines, not the WCCC.

The title on the web site is immediately followed with an explanation as to what the title means:

“2013 World Chess Engine Champion!
Don, we won! We won! Komodo outright won the TCEC tournament ahead of the world's strongest programs, including: Houdini, Stockfish and Rybka.”

Leaving out the second part is misleading. It clearly explains the title and what Komodo accomplished.

I personally feel the results from Martin’s excellent TCEC tournament are more meaningful than the very time limited WCCC. It would simply be too expensive to organize and run an in-person tournament that lasts months. TCEC lets more programs compete and for a much larger number of games to get closer to an accurate winner.

However, to prevent any confusion, we will adjust the title to reflect TCEC. We also need to post results of CCT which Komodo also won.

Mark

[sicilianquake87]

That is good, right? We want people to participate. The reason does not really matter. The more reasons, the better.

We are worrying here about why people do not participate when something is called a World Championship.

Perhaps it's the same reason. Are you so willing to put your money and your time on the line to go in some distant place around the world, inside a venue, playing chess using an engine that is most likely going to be disqualified after months/years of work?
The others go beause they know they will have an income from the title or place. Somebody else decides that it's not worth it.

[Harvey Williamson]

I personally feel the results from Martin’s excellent TCEC tournament are more meaningful than the very time limited WCCC. It would simply be too expensive to organize and run an in-person tournament that lasts months. TCEC lets more programs compete and for a much larger number of games to get closer to an accurate winner.

Mark

Leagues last months. World Championships and Olympic games etc tend to last a couple of weeks.