fern wrote:I am afraid you are in an awful state of delirious tremend.
The games whose details you have posted appertain to a tournament celebrated in Baden Baden in 1904, where a predecessor of Moron prepared by my grand grand father, running in penciled notes, destroyed a similar program prepared by your gran grand father. You put it all in reverse.
As you know well, after the conclusion of the tournament, that Moron won 10-0, our grand grand fathers were involved in a quarrel in the middle of a ball and they went to a garden for a duel with pistols.
Both missed the shots and finished the night getting drunk and friendly in a bar.
Nevertheless, the result was the same: Moron won.
All this you can meet in a history book wrote by German scholar, Herr, otto Diesel, an important book for chess history called "Great games in Baden Baden 1904", not a great tittle but good enough
.You can find the book in the Vatican library.
I hope this leaves everything clear and please no more words about this issue.
Fern
Fern,
since my buddy Benedict resigned the papal chair and left it for a South-American (:x), I'm not allowed anymore in the Vatican library. Therefore, I cannot verify your preposterous claim. Also I think that the pre-Moron engine was disqualified as it was actually programmed to play Tic-Tac-Toe and only won due to an unfortunate affair with the arbiters wife (which, as you know, 9 months later had as a result your grand-father entering the scene.)
It is likely though that our grand grand fathers had this episode in Baden Baden as my father's line is well know for their drunkards.
On a second thought though, it could be me who was drunk in Baden-Baden....
Axel
Undisputed WCCC-Champion Baden-Baden 1904 & Munich 2014
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five".
Groucho Marx
bob wrote:I thought about this for a bit, and recalled some interesting factoids.
(1) best tennis player on the planet is named "#1 rank in world" by virtue of being on top of the professional tennis player rankings, which is based on all games played, not just one tournament.
(2) best golfer in the world is named "#1 player" by virtue of being on top of the professional golf list, again based on not just one tournament.
(3) really interesting cases happen in (say) NCAA basketball, where most conferences award a title "regular season conference champion" for the team with the best overall in-conference record, and then turn around and have a "conference championship" tournament to award whit is, on occasion, a SECOND conference champion in the same season.
There really is a difference between being #1 in world and winner of the Master's, or winner of the British Open, or whatever individual event is chosen. Most seem to want #1 to be on top of the rating list, AND win every tournament available. Not likely.
Well, the #1 engine is the one at top rating list, Houidini 4 at this time, and for sure many will consider the "champ". But then, you play a match between H4 and latest SF and SF come first... This is like tennis, when Federer when was #1 but time to time losing against Nadal (o other).
So in the end, the concept of what is a "champ" is very subjective and the poll is inclined towards TCEC tournament.
bob wrote:I thought about this for a bit, and recalled some interesting factoids.
(1) best tennis player on the planet is named "#1 rank in world" by virtue of being on top of the professional tennis player rankings, which is based on all games played, not just one tournament.
(2) best golfer in the world is named "#1 player" by virtue of being on top of the professional golf list, again based on not just one tournament.
(3) really interesting cases happen in (say) NCAA basketball, where most conferences award a title "regular season conference champion" for the team with the best overall in-conference record, and then turn around and have a "conference championship" tournament to award whit is, on occasion, a SECOND conference champion in the same season.
There really is a difference between being #1 in world and winner of the Master's, or winner of the British Open, or whatever individual event is chosen. Most seem to want #1 to be on top of the rating list, AND win every tournament available. Not likely.
Well, the #1 engine is the one at top rating list, Houidini 4 at this time, and for sure many will consider the "champ". But then, you play a match between H4 and latest SF and SF come first... This is like tennis, when Federer when was #1 but time to time losing against Nadal (o other).
So in the end, the concept of what is a "champ" is very subjective and the poll is inclined towards TCEC tournament.
I believe this is attributed to a "herd mentality" however. We have three events
(1) ICGA over just a few days, a few rounds;
(2) TCEC significantly longer, significantly more games;
(3) CCRL/SSDF/etc rating lists with THOUSANDS of games.
which is the most accurate? No question but what the larger number of games gives the most accurate answer. Simple statistics and sampling theory. Which is easiest to hold, most convenient for the participants? The shortest event; It is hard to fathom why one would favor TCEC over CCRL or SSDF which are far more accurate because they have so many more games, if the main thing wanted is "which program is best?"
Much of this is just anti-ICGA. To each their own.
bob wrote:
I believe this is attributed to a "herd mentality"
.
WAy to go to alienate a whole bunch of genuine computer chess fans.
Just because YOU don't understand their mentality doesn't mean their viewpoints aren't valid.
Maybe that's what this all comes down to.
Time for a changing of the guard.
Should the WC remain in the hands of a bunch of bitter nasty (and I mean that, read some of your posts towards your fellow enthusiasts) old men who run an old-fashioned outdated closed members-club that acts in deeply questionable ways?
Or should the new generation take over, one that was raised on the internet, that doesn't give a flying monkeys about your "right" (there is none) to proclaim the WC based on your likes, dislikes, grudges and pettiness, that wants to see the best engines duke it out on a level playing field on modern hardware?
I think we already know the answer.
The people have spoken and chosen their champion.
Caesar is looking frail these days.
It is fortunate that at last we coincide in something. Yes, my gran grand father had that liaison with that lady and the result was a line that in its final branch landed in you, so we are cousins of a sort, fact that is additionally proved by the fact that my father lin is too plenty of drunkards, as i am myself.
Wit that in mind, this morning I called back my Serbians which were already on the way to kill you as a liar and slandering kind of guy.
So i advice to forget all this about Moron and your pitiable engine and share a wine or two one of these days.
I already had a German mathematician in my home, years ago, so I can tolerate another German guy any day.
bob wrote:
I believe this is attributed to a "herd mentality"
.
WAy to go to alienate a whole bunch of genuine computer chess fans.
Just because YOU don't understand their mentality doesn't mean their viewpoints aren't valid.
Maybe that's what this all comes down to.
Time for a changing of the guard.
Should the WC remain in the hands of a bunch of bitter nasty (and I mean that, read some of your posts towards your fellow enthusiasts) old men who run an old-fashioned outdated closed members-club that acts in deeply questionable ways?
Or should the new generation take over, one that was raised on the internet, that doesn't give a flying monkeys about your "right" (there is none) to proclaim the WC based on your likes, dislikes, grudges and pettiness, that wants to see the best engines duke it out on a level playing field on modern hardware?
I think we already know the answer.
The people have spoken and chosen their champion.
Caesar is looking frail these days.
If you want a tournament that declares the winner the "World Computer Chess Champion" and you want to allow all the scumbag copiers to enter their code, exactly WHAT is preventing YOU from organizing that event? It was tried last year and nobody entered. Which seems to dispute YOUR "old guard" nonsense completely. If that was considered the way to run the ICGA event, that's the way it would be run. Authors DO have the right to organize the event the way they want, THEY are the ones that expended the effort to actually write a chess engine, debug a chess engine, and tune a chess engine.
If that alienates you, that's just the way it is. I don't try to push my desired rules into NCAA football, or into NASCAR, or into tennis, or into track and field. That's for the participants to establish. Same here for computer chess.
Don't like the rules, form your OWN event. Make the rules attractive enough and you might get participation. Allow derivatives and you will get nothing but derivatives, if that is what you want. Stop whining about "old guard" and "old rules" and such and actually DO SOMETHING. Whining gets you nowhere.
BTW, "herd mentality" is not exactly an insult. It describes a type of behavior where everyone goes along with the crowd. Never heard of that in the past? Maybe high-school or whatever???
How about YOU (few) stay with your outdated ICGA WCCC and WE (many) use something better? Our modern WCCC tournament is already there, running at this very moment. It's a nice event, the REAL event, for both engine authors and for spectators.
hgm wrote:Yes, and you can dream that it actually is a World Championship Chess!
Well, every body is free to claim a "champion" as his own criteria. The poll shows the diversity of opinion. The problem is when some author claim HIS engine is the WCCC. (As it was with Komodo).
