how will Leela fare at the WCCC?

[IanO]

Oh man,the first time I see those photos where people are manually entering moves. no IT professionals to set up two computers via LAN? I can even do that!!

The rules of this tournament are rooted in the dawn of the computer era (70's) long before networks and standardized serial communication protocols. Playing on a physical chess board was considered the easiest way to interoperate between such widely varying platforms such as remote secured supercomputers and dedicated chess computers.

As to whether we should change this rule, that is up to the ICGA, and I don't want to spark this argument for the 2421st time. (Seriously, check the archives and even Usenet rec.games.chess.computer!)

To blunder it all away would require worse chess than any computer I've ever owned, even from the 1980's. It just wouldn't happen. Surely.

There is no way in hell Leela loses that outside of somehow getting disqualified or losing on time and it seems disingenuous to even suggest it.

There is always a third opponent in every computer chess game: the esteemed Mr. Murphy. The WCCC archives are littered with dozens of abruptly lost games because the program crashed. I mean, it is no different than a high performance engine blowing a gasket during an race, even if the car is ahead. This happens in all computer chess events, even the latest TCEC had to disqualify Chiron after it crashed three times, and there were even some games where the crash came just a few moves before mate!

[Werewolf]

There is always a third opponent in every computer chess game: the esteemed Mr. Murphy. The WCCC archives are littered with dozens of abruptly lost games because the program crashed.

Sadly, there are still crashes in computer chess. But the possibility of a crash cannot be the justification for playing a position on "just in case". If it was, an ending K + B vs K could be played on for 50 moves by either side, hoping the opponent will spontaneously lose. No one does this.

[frankp]

Oh man,the first time I see those photos where people are manually entering moves. no IT professionals to set up two computers via LAN? I can even do that!!

The rules of this tournament are rooted in the dawn of the computer era (70's) long before networks and standardized serial communication protocols. Playing on a physical chess board was considered the easiest way to interoperate between such widely varying platforms such as remote secured supercomputers and dedicated chess computers.

As to whether we should change this rule, that is up to the ICGA, and I don't want to spark this argument for the 2421st time. (Seriously, check the archives and even Usenet rec.games.chess.computer!)

To blunder it all away would require worse chess than any computer I've ever owned, even from the 1980's. It just wouldn't happen. Surely.

There is no way in hell Leela loses that outside of somehow getting disqualified or losing on time and it seems disingenuous to even suggest it.

There is always a third opponent in every computer chess game: the esteemed Mr. Murphy. The WCCC archives are littered with dozens of abruptly lost games because the program crashed. I mean, it is no different than a high performance engine blowing a gasket during an race, even if the car is ahead. This happens in all computer chess events, even the latest TCEC had to disqualify Chiron after it crashed three times, and there were even some games where the crash came just a few moves before mate!

The clear difference is that a human operator can affect, in fact change, the result.

The komodo operator won the game, not komodo.
What people think about that is a matter for them, but it does not change the fact.

If a program loses on time or crashes then so be it. It is the fault of the program, so to speak.
I find it bizarre that the result of a WCCC match, and perhaps the whole event, can be changed, or even affected, by human intervention/error/ability to move and type fast. Perhaps I simpley misunderstood the meaning of the ' WCCC'.

[Jouni]

Already in move 35. Houdini, Komodo and SF evaluate position 0,00 almost instantly and keep it. No need to continue . Definitely unfair from Komodo team. But they are already announcing in homepage "2018 World Computer Blitz Champion".

[lkaufman]

Already in move 35. Houdini, Komodo and SF evaluate position 0,00 almost instantly and keep it. No need to continue . Definitely unfair from Komodo team. But they are already announcing in homepage "2018 World Computer Blitz Champion".

I should complain to Jesse, our webmaster, that it doesn't already also say "2018 World Software Chess Champion", a title we've now held for an entire day . Since he's on vacation, I'll forgive him!

[Uri Blass]

There is always a third opponent in every computer chess game: the esteemed Mr. Murphy. The WCCC archives are littered with dozens of abruptly lost games because the program crashed.

Sadly, there are still crashes in computer chess. But the possibility of a crash cannot be the justification for playing a position on "just in case". If it was, an ending K + B vs K could be played on for 50 moves by either side, hoping the opponent will spontaneously lose. No one does this.

K+B vs K is a draw by the rules of chess even if one side lose on time because there is no way one side can help the second site to make checkmate.
It is not the same for KRP vs KBP

[bob]

Couple of points...

There has been a solution for this. If program A offers a draw ITSELF, that is supposed to be passed on to program B, IF it can process the request. Then no human intervention is possible. The idea is that a program should be able to play a completely legal game of chess all by itself. If you can't figure out to handle a draw and make a rational decision inside the program, you can always just spit out a "decline draw" when you receive a draw offer as input.

SOME of us have wanted 100% automated games for years. SOME of us could do this back in the 70's and did it for testing. But then we had the commercial "whiners" that were using dedicated chess hardware and no modem hardware around them. SO they were the exception, and with one exception, everyone ended up being the exception and it never happened. Both Ken Thompson and I were using electronic chess boards we designed and built (not same design by any stretch). That eliminated a ton of human operator errors. But it still allowed manipulation with things like a "move now" key and such.

I presume this will never change except for those of us that have played real online tournaments with HGM, or ICC or whatever, where not being automated is a definite disadvantage due to lost time.

Second, I think the programmers have always agreed to the idea that if both programs are using EGTBs and both see a draw, they can ask the TD to declare the game drawn. But if one doesn't have EGTBs of some sort, then that leaves the door open for mistakes. I have seen many over the years, and since it really is about two "tireless" machines playing, playing a game to a real draw only impacts the next round at worst case. Whether it should have been drawn or lost is debatable. But in fact, it was won and that is on the loser for not getting endgame tables implemented... Or at least doing a better job at time usage.

[Milos]

One thing is legitimacy another one morality.
Even though this win is totally legitimate, it is also very low on moral standards.
But Komodo team is not known to have high moral standards anyway (for those who are prone to forgetfulness, just a remembrance to a certain round opening game with Houdini in TCEC), so that's not a big surprise.

[tiptongrange]

K+B vs K is a draw by the rules of chess even if one side lose on time because there is no way one side can help the second site to make checkmate.
It is not the same for KRP vs KBP

Except that you are thinking that Leela trades R for B, instead he can trade R for P. The operator could have played 133. Rb4+ as an "operator error", then 134. Rxa4 before time runs out, again as an "operator error", and the game is drawn due to insufficient mating material.

[Uri Blass]

K+B vs K is a draw by the rules of chess even if one side lose on time because there is no way one side can help the second site to make checkmate.
It is not the same for KRP vs KBP

Except that you are thinking that Leela trades R for B, instead he can trade R for P. The operator could have played 133. Rb4+ as an "operator error", then 134. Rxa4 before time runs out, again as an "operator error", and the game is drawn due to insufficient mating material.

trading R for a P means KP vs KB and it is not insufficient mating material because the side with the pawn can help the side with the bishop to make a mate when the idea is to promote the pawn to a knight or a bishop and later go with the king to the corner.