What engine is World computer chess champion?

[M ANSARI]

The people that "matter" have 3 votes??!! I guess they must have voted for themselves !!!

[Modern Times]

The people that "matter" have 3 votes??!! I guess they must have voted for themselves !!!

Never fear, when the Hiarcs forum become aware of this poll you will suddenly see a flurry of votes for the ICGA.

[Haikouichthys]

Define 'world computer chess champion' (or at least define the meta-criteria that the chosen definition should satisfy) and I'll answer. Otherwise it's just quibbling over label definitions.

[poet]

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?

[IGarcia]

What engine do YOU consider as World Computer Chess Champion?

The poll is to know what you consider a WCCC besides if there is an official designation.

I still vote for none (if other means other option then it covers it, if it means another tournament, no). I will check other.

Miguel

There is not a none option (my mistake) but i do think its represented by "other" option.

last option can be viewed as: Other / NONE

The ones "do not care" are free to not vote

[poet]

last option can be viewed as: Other / NONE

Ah, ok.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

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

[poet]

As long as that adjudication wasn't carried out by yourself to skew the results in your new engines favour, that's all good.

Congrats on the new title.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

As long as that adjudication wasn't carried out by yourself to skew the results in your new engines favour, that's all good.

Congrats on the new title.

Of course that adjudication was carried out by myself. In the starting position my engine was clearly winning - and who wants a Chilenian engine WCCC anyway ?!!

Axel
Grailmaster-WCCC Champion 2014

[Evert]

You know, I've pretty much had it with this discussion.

For one thing, people seem to be arguing about semantics. For another, people seem to all have their own interpretation of what any particular term means, which makes for very pointless and tiring semantic discussions.

Anyway, for what it's worth, my few cents:

• The winner of the "world championship" tournament is the "world champion". You can add a qualifier to that. The winner of the "on-line world championship" is the "on-line world champion", the winner of the "open source world championship" is the "open source world champion". Of course it may be better to say "winner of such and so world championship" rather than "such and so world champion".
• The strongest program is the program that tops the world ranking list. You can qualify that further by adding the name of the list that the program leads ("the number 1 according to the CCRL 40/40 rating list", ay), since I don't think there's a really "official" (according to whom?) world ranking list of chess programs.
• The strongest program is not necessarily the world champion. As with humans: the human with the highest rating is not necessarily the one who won the world championship title. Usually you would expect the number 1 to also win the world championship, but there is no reason they have to be the same.
• The TCEC is not called the "world championship", so there seems to be no basis on which to call the winner a world champion. You may find it more relevant. That's fine. It's still not called the "world championship".

It's really no more difficult than that. 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.