World Chess Computer Champion?

[S.Taylor]

Actually this is almost universally not true. The way it works in real life is that people who engage in a certain competative activity organize themselves into an official representative body, and delegate the right to organize a World Championship exclusively to that body.

That was not the case with Boxing. At one point there were two organisations, each awarding their own World Champion titles. Maybe there still is, I'm not sure. So there is no monopoly on anyone organising a World Championship. That is a fact.

EDIT: In fact it seems in Boxing there are 4 World titles ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cu ... _champions

WBA
WBC
IBF
WBO

Fact or not ?

Te WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) world champion (Randy Orton) was named "world champion" purely on the grounds that it would anger alot of people that he was crowned to be that, and it would cause more people to watch the broadcasts and attend shows out of anger and think "What EVER next!!!?", and therefore it would be "best for business". Perhaps Wrestling fans feel that corruption is what wrestling is all about. But woe is anyone who would to say the Randy Orton is not the world champion of the WWE (He is brutal and wicked and loves to inflict physical injury for the sake of it right in front of everyones eyes, but loses most matches).

[M ANSARI]

This entire post is just silly. I mean if the purpose is to be super accurate and try and point someone less versed in computer engines to get proper information to buy the strongest chess engine, then I can understand that. We could agree to disagree or whatever. But to come out and with a straight face, claim that Hiarcs or Junior are the WCCC of 2013 makes the entire argument suspect. If the reasoning is to prevent Komodo for making false claims that can dupe an unsuspecting buyer into buying the "wrong" engine because it is inferior ... let's see Hiarcs is rated on CCRL as #11 and Junior is rated #17 !!! Yet somehow it is OK to have them claim to be the World Chess Champion of 2013 but Komodo cannot? Way to go to make sure the unsuspecting engine buyer does not get duped!

I really find it amazing that someone who is well versed in computer chess engine testing, can belittle what the TCEC has achieved or is achieving. The competition was designed with the participation of many forum readers in computer chess. The aim was to avoid bullet time controls and have a setup that would use big hardware (bigger than most have in their home) and Long Time Controls (something that is logistically very difficult to test due time required). There was also the aim of trying to make statistical noise as low as possible within a reasonable time frame. The qualifying stages allowed many engines that are not well known to have a go at the top ... and many unknown engines made a very impressive showing! The quality of chess games played were probably some of the highest quality ever, and the comprehensive nature of the several stages required to finally have a Super Final where only the top 2 engines would compete was what everyone wanted. Sure most of us thought that it would be between SF and Houdini, but Komodo qualified fair and square through exceptional play and winning most stages! In the Super Final, it was not 1 or 2 games, but rather 48 games against SF!!! Although it was very close, Komodo managed to squeak by and won!

Nothing has ever been as comprehensive and inclusive as the TCEC, and is the reason why many consider it as the DE FACTO World Computer Chess Championship. When the tournament was being played, everyone watching it understood that and believed that. You can argue that it does not qualify as per "your" standards ... but to sit there and try and to convince the rest of us that Junior or Hiarcs are the "true" WCCC of 2013 because David Levy says so ....... Yeah right buddy dream on!

[hgm]

Well, the people that mattered have already been convinced, and your opinion counts for zilch anyway, as you are not an engine author. So there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Those are facts, not dreams. As to what you are saying, however...

[M ANSARI]

Well, the people that mattered have already been convinced, and your opinion counts for zilch anyway, as you are not an engine author. So there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Those are facts, not dreams. As to what you are saying, however...

And as you have stated before, you actually don't even like chess so why not stick to variant chess and keep your thoughts about standard chess to yourself or to others that actually enjoy and appreciate the game of chess. Besides, you are absolutely wrong that chess engine authors are not involved with the TCEC tournament ... they are HEAVILY involved. What makes you say they are not involved? Also when you refer to people that "mattered" which people are you referring to? Other than yourself of course ... who else "matters"? Inquiring minds want to know !!! Maybe the TCEC should be called the World Computer Chess Championship for those that do not matter !!! I can live with that!

[Modern Times]

The ICGA has no authority (except the faith placed in it by the individual) to declare a "World Champion" of anything. It does have the authority to declare an ICGA "World Champion" of something. Of course, that is still only worth the value individuals attach to it.

Yes, and in fact, while certain people are being pedantic, the Hiarcs website should be changed to say "ICGA World Champion".

[sicilianquake87]

Well, the people that mattered have already been convinced, and your opinion counts for zilch anyway, as you are not an engine author. So there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Those are facts, not dreams. As to what you are saying, however...

And this is exactly why some tournaments enjoy much more crowds/sponsors/fans than ICGA. Keep that attitude, it will for sure mantain your exclusive club as it is!

[hgm]

It is no secrets that the ICGA is an organization for Chess-program authors. And that the interests of these authors do not always coincide with those of consumers of Chess software. It is for instance in the interest of consumers (especially the short-term interest) that software containing spectacular improvements is stolen from the original authors as quickly as possible, and used as a basis for further improvement by others, preferably dessiminated for free to the public. Everything for Elo, especially if it is free Elo. Never mind property rights, they are just a hindrance to progress. I have seen remarks to that effect often enough. It would be in the interest of users if the ICGA would be a consumer organization, with no other purpose than to figure out with high precision which program is the 'best buy', no matter what its origin is. Why would a consumer care if program X is written by author A or B, or stolen from B and now sold by A, after having been made 20 Elo stronger? 20 Elo is 20 Elo, after all, and B was charging a higher price for it anyway.

And no, ICGA is not going to fulfill that role. If consumers want a consumer organization to serve their interests, they can start their own.

[sicilianquake87]

Fine! Then following the blabbering about coherence change ICGA in ICSA (International Chess Software Authors) and stop ridiculous and laughable claims about the "Official World Champion".

[hgm]

Like in any sport the people that play it decide, through their designated representative organization, what they will call their official World Championship. It seems you have some difficulty understanding that.

If you, as an outsider, want to rename the Tour de France to World Championship cycling, and want to force the UCI to change their name in UDI ('International Dope Users'), based on the fact that you sometimes watch cycling on your TV, people would just think you are an idiot. If you don't believe me, try it...

[sicilianquake87]

Like in any sport the people that play it decide on what they will designate as their official World Championship. It seems you have some difficulty understanding that.

Like in any sport: some people (In F1 are not the drivers those who decide the rules, so again you're talking only about what floats your boat) first decide the best rules (not trying to keep somebody out but to involve all and enjoy a fair competition), then structure the event ( selections, nationals...), then let the players and the public enjoy the event and finally they give a prize to the best. It seems you have a lot of problems understanding that.