World Chess Computer Champion?

[bob]

I have no ligtamcy to make an argument, I am no programer nor do I have much knowledge of chess engine tournaments, or who is the best.

That being said, I'm a little confused:
If the TCEC tournament is indeed the more sought after amongst chess engine enthusiast, (as so many here seem to claim) then shouldn't being the winner of that title be more sought after by the Komodo team and be the more desirable label then "World Champion?" Or at least be enough in terms of bragging rights?

I couldn't tell you who who is the world champion in giant slalom skiing, but I just watched Ted Ligetti kick the ever living tar out of the competition in the Olympics toady. (I believe HGM said something earlier on the Myopicness of Americans XD) Olympic Gold Medalist tends to be the far more prestigious title then "World Champion". Particularly World Champion a niche group in a much larger category in the eyes of the public.

Winning an olympic event is a major accomplishment. But there is STILL a lot of luck involved. I've seen luck win/lose basketball games, soccer games, 100m dash, etc. Stuff happens. Being ranked #1 by outstanding performances through several events is more accurate. But there is STILL a world championship track and field event.

[bob]

The first WCCC (1974) was organized by the ACM. As was the second in 1977. At that tournament, in Toronto, Canada, a group of us chose to form an organization to provide a forum for research dissemination (the journal), promote computer chess development (holding the WCCC every 3 years), etc. We've been doing it ever sense. 37 years. That lends a lot of credibility to the organization. A few years back the organization decided to increase its scope, and went from ICCA to ICGA. They didn't need anyone's permission, nor anyone's approval.

The ICGA is what it is, primarily an organization developed by programmers, for programmers. Nothing more, nothing less. It is no less relevant today than it was 20 years ago. The few Rybka whiners can say whatever they want, but just because they say it does not make it true or factual. Computer chess has NEVER been a "public mainstay" of interest to everyone, with the possible exception of the 1996-1997 matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue.

Is the ICGA still relevant to the computer chess community? More specifically, is it still as relevant to the authors? I wonder how many active authors are ICGA members.

You can take a poll. "yes" for me. The journal is still relevant, although it is less "chessy" than the ICCA journal. But it reflects a broadening of scope, and there are lots of interesting games computers play, along with publications from those different game authors. This is similar to being a member of ACM, or IEEE or if you are a doctor, AMA. The publications are certainly relevant.

[bob]

Well, I don't know anything about TCEC, as it is completely without interest to me.

Well, it's usually not wise to enter a discussion you don't know anything about . So far only 6 of the 46 voters consider the ICGA as the legitime body for the world-title.

That would have been quite different 2½ years ago.

Something must have happened, but what?

a "herd mentality" has decided that the ICGA is irrelevant. 90% of those "voters" are not programmers. I'd imagine if you ask women in the US, 90% would vote to "get rid of NASCAR, football, basketball, and all the other events that occupy so much prime-time TV."

You have been part of the herd for longer time than most. It has been one of your punching bags for ages and it is not very difficult to google and find quotes about it. Why do you have to belittle people who do not think like you (now)?

"The answer is pretty clear. Yes, authors present is better than authors not present. But do you _really_ believe that authors present is better when very few programs _or_ authors show up? Is a 10-participant WCCC _really_ a "WCCC" event???"
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=366099

"Luck has _nothing_ to do with this. Many of us have been harping on "auto interface only" for 20+ years. ICCA did nothing. We brought up the shared GUI/BOOK issue. ICCA did nothing. I brought up a known clone (1996 WMCCC) but ICCA again did nothing. They seem to be very good at doing nothing, and reaping the rewards."
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=332472

Miguel

First, when I criticized the ICGA, I gave a specific problem, explained why it was a problem, and suggested solutions. My main complaint has been about the length of the events, which makes them cost too much, and make them pretty much impossible for me to attend. I didn't miss an ACM event from 1976 to 1994 when the last one was held. I didn't miss a WCCC event through 1989, when it was held in Alberta, Canada. They were (WCCCs) 5 rounds, 4 days, didn't cause us to have to miss over a week of classes since it was partly held on the weekend + mon/tues for the final rounds.

They became too long, too many wanted more rounds, particularly the commercial entries. The WCCC used to be 5 rounds, the WMCCC became a 1.5 week deal. Then they were combined and the WCCC became too long. I suggested several "fixes." Back to 5 rounds. Or play the first 4 rounds over the internet and the last 5 in person, getting back to a short in-person event.

Most here just whine and complain. Ed's "relic rule 2". No suggestions, even when specifically asked. Just "whine, whine, whine, Rybka / Vas was treated unfairly, whine, whine, whine." Never mind following rules, ethics, etc.

As far as the shared book issue, I believe the ICGA DID address that. The book author is part of the team, he can not be on two different teams as we were seeing back in the day of Jeroen doing chess tiger and whichever other program his book was used in. Suited me.

I've made the automated interface argument many times. I understand the counter-arguments. The minute you require that, you exclude dedicated hardware boxes. Machines with no serial ports (back when that was the ONLY communication medium) or no ethernet port today. The novel "computer in a matchbox". Ken Thompson and I argued for this from the late 70's, and we developed working hardware to "sit in the middle" (before TCP/IP was commonplace and when there were no chess server type software packages and such.) But I understood the "let's don't be exclusionary" argument even if I didn't like it. However, back to basics. WE are the ICGA. It is not like it is an organization that just does what it wants and ignores the very people that are its membership.

The people I "belittle" are the non-authors that want to dictate how our tournaments are organized and run, who we should allow or not allow to compete, how we should change the rules to improve their enjoyment regardless of how we feel about such changes, etc. Whine about Houdini. It is a clone/derivative. Plain and simple. Unwanted in ICGA events. Regardless of what the spectators want, the participants seem to be pretty uniform in not wanting such programs included.

I don't begin to understand your reference to "luck". If you don't believe luck is a part of every computer chess tournament on record, you haven't given it much thought.

For your "known clone" (which I do not know about unless you are talking about gunda-1) I have no idea what was discussed, what evidence you gave them, etc. If this was about Gunda-1, I also complained, but it was a political issue more than anything else, I can provide more details if that is what you were talking about.

I don't care what the users, the fans, the whatever think about how the ICGA event is run. I only care about what _I_ and other _programmers_ think. We are the reason the event is held in the first place, not all the spectators. If they are interested, they are free to come and watch what is done. They do NOT get to decide what is done and how. It is a "take it or leave it" deal tailored to the programmers, as opposed to the general public.

[Adam Hair]

The first WCCC (1974) was organized by the ACM. As was the second in 1977. At that tournament, in Toronto, Canada, a group of us chose to form an organization to provide a forum for research dissemination (the journal), promote computer chess development (holding the WCCC every 3 years), etc. We've been doing it ever sense. 37 years. That lends a lot of credibility to the organization. A few years back the organization decided to increase its scope, and went from ICCA to ICGA. They didn't need anyone's permission, nor anyone's approval.

The ICGA is what it is, primarily an organization developed by programmers, for programmers. Nothing more, nothing less. It is no less relevant today than it was 20 years ago. The few Rybka whiners can say whatever they want, but just because they say it does not make it true or factual. Computer chess has NEVER been a "public mainstay" of interest to everyone, with the possible exception of the 1996-1997 matches between Kasparov and Deep Blue.

Is the ICGA still relevant to the computer chess community? More specifically, is it still as relevant to the authors? I wonder how many active authors are ICGA members.

You can take a poll. "yes" for me. The journal is still relevant, although it is less "chessy" than the ICCA journal. But it reflects a broadening of scope, and there are lots of interesting games computers play, along with publications from those different game authors. This is similar to being a member of ACM, or IEEE or if you are a doctor, AMA. The publications are certainly relevant.

I agree with you about the journal.

[bob]

Well, I don't know anything about TCEC, as it is completely without interest to me.

Well, it's usually not wise to enter a discussion you don't know anything about . So far only 6 of the 46 voters consider the ICGA as the legitime body for the world-title.

That would have been quite different 2½ years ago.

Something must have happened, but what?

a "herd mentality" has decided that the ICGA is irrelevant. 90% of those "voters" are not programmers. I'd imagine if you ask women in the US, 90% would vote to "get rid of NASCAR, football, basketball, and all the other events that occupy so much prime-time TV."

I don't care what the users, the fans, the whatever think about how the ICGA event is run. I only care about what _I_ and other _programmers_ think. We are the reason the event is held in the first place, not all the spectators. If they are interested, they are free to come and watch what is done. They do NOT get to decide what is done and how. It is a "take it or leave it" deal tailored to the programmers, as opposed to the general public.

I estimate that during those 2½ years more than 20 chess programmers have raised their voice against the ICGA. You can begin with the 12 who criticized the Rybka verdict. IOW, don't say their is no problem.

I don't know if there still really is an interest among the new generation of chess programmers to have a real world championship (times have changed, the internet as main culprit), but *if* there still is an interest then the inelasticity has to change.

Why don't you raise the issue in a separate thread here? Ask exactly what their issues are/were? Most will likely address the Rybka issue and nothing else. Of those, the majority will probably mention the verdict as their primary complaint.

But raise the issue and see what you get. Forget this imaginary 20 programmer number. I'd only consider input from those that have actually ATTENDED a WCCC event at some point in time, i.e. a real participant, rather than those that have never experienced the events at all.

[Adam Hair]

They were not "allowed" to participant. I believe Martin chose to included Komodo, and may have been thrilled that Don took an active participatory role.

Well, I don't know anything about TCEC, as it is completely without interest to me. But what you suggest here seems a key point that has not received any attention so far in this discussion:

If I understand you correctly, participants of TCEC are not participating out of their free will, but simply 'recruited' without having any say in it. That makes it a bit silly to claim that TCEC is doing a much better job than WCCC in attracting participants.

The main question is if it is acceptable for a World Championship to force participation, possibly against the participant's wishes. Is that even morally acceptable? It would of course be trivial for the WCCC to just invite a few local people to operate Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini. Can that be called 'being successful in attracting strong participants'?

Another issue of concern is this: apparently TCEC is an invitation tournament, where a single person without any official affiliation or mandate decides which programs he considers fit to participate, and which he doesn't like. Which is of course perfectly OK for a private tournament. But pretty much totally unacceptable for a World Championship. (Not that Martin should be criticised for currently doing a very bad job on this, of course, but as a matter of principle.)

At the very least a tournament should have objectively defined rules for participation, which allow open participation to anyone not engaging in criminal or morally dubious practices, and which ensure fair competition (e.g. no multiple entry of the same program to enhance its chances) before it can be considered a World Championship. And I don't think TCEC satisfies those requirements (only SMP engines allowed?) Apparently TCEC does have originality / legality requirements. (Impossible Heron was refused.) Are they spelled out somewhere? How exactly are they enforced? I think there is much more to a World Championship than just buying a high-end comuputer, selecting a few participants based on personal preference and running it on the internet.

I agree with you. If Martin wanted (which he does not) TCEC to be a "World Championship", then the present format is lacking in some aspects. For a World Championship, then books, learning, pondering should all be allowed. Anything that an author codes into his engine that (in theory) makes the engine play better chess should be allowed. Also, two identical computers should be used to eliminate any competition for resources. And I am sure there are additional items (such as a codified set of competition rules) that would need to be addressed.

However, high level chess entertainment is more the goal of TCEC, and Martin has been doing an excellent job in terms of that goal.

That does not explain the lack of strong non-commercial engines.

Indeed, it does not. But which engines exactly are we talking about? Stockfish obviously, but Tord doesn't want to have anything to do with the 'toxic environment of Computer Chess' (can you blame him?), and Marco has made it a sort of religious dogma to never participate in tournaments. Which other non-commercials qualify as top engines? Critter?, Gull?

If we look at engines that are in the top 20, then Hannibal, Protector, Spike, and Spark. And there are plenty of engines just outside the top 20 that could put in a good showing in a Swiss system tournament. Of course, my definition of a strong engine differs from that of others.

[Rebel]

Well, I don't know anything about TCEC, as it is completely without interest to me.

Well, it's usually not wise to enter a discussion you don't know anything about . So far only 6 of the 46 voters consider the ICGA as the legitime body for the world-title.

That would have been quite different 2½ years ago.

Something must have happened, but what?

a "herd mentality" has decided that the ICGA is irrelevant. 90% of those "voters" are not programmers. I'd imagine if you ask women in the US, 90% would vote to "get rid of NASCAR, football, basketball, and all the other events that occupy so much prime-time TV."

I don't care what the users, the fans, the whatever think about how the ICGA event is run. I only care about what _I_ and other _programmers_ think. We are the reason the event is held in the first place, not all the spectators. If they are interested, they are free to come and watch what is done. They do NOT get to decide what is done and how. It is a "take it or leave it" deal tailored to the programmers, as opposed to the general public.

I estimate that during those 2½ years more than 20 chess programmers have raised their voice against the ICGA. You can begin with the 12 who criticized the Rybka verdict. IOW, don't say their is no problem.

I don't know if there still really is an interest among the new generation of chess programmers to have a real world championship (times have changed, the internet as main culprit), but *if* there still is an interest then the inelasticity has to change.

Why don't you raise the issue in a separate thread here? Ask exactly what their issues are/were? Most will likely address the Rybka issue and nothing else. Of those, the majority will probably mention the verdict as their primary complaint.

But raise the issue and see what you get. Forget this imaginary 20 programmer number. I'd only consider input from those that have actually ATTENDED a WCCC event at some point in time, i.e. a real participant, rather than those that have never experienced the events at all.

Democracy out, elitism in, you never cease to amaze me.

[Rebel]

Well, I don't know anything about TCEC, as it is completely without interest to me.

Well, it's usually not wise to enter a discussion you don't know anything about . So far only 6 of the 46 voters consider the ICGA as the legitime body for the world-title.

That would have been quite different 2½ years ago.

Something must have happened, but what?

a "herd mentality" has decided that the ICGA is irrelevant. 90% of those "voters" are not programmers. I'd imagine if you ask women in the US, 90% would vote to "get rid of NASCAR, football, basketball, and all the other events that occupy so much prime-time TV."

You have been part of the herd for longer time than most. It has been one of your punching bags for ages and it is not very difficult to google and find quotes about it. Why do you have to belittle people who do not think like you (now)?

"The answer is pretty clear. Yes, authors present is better than authors not present. But do you _really_ believe that authors present is better when very few programs _or_ authors show up? Is a 10-participant WCCC _really_ a "WCCC" event???"
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=366099

"Luck has _nothing_ to do with this. Many of us have been harping on "auto interface only" for 20+ years. ICCA did nothing. We brought up the shared GUI/BOOK issue. ICCA did nothing. I brought up a known clone (1996 WMCCC) but ICCA again did nothing. They seem to be very good at doing nothing, and reaping the rewards."
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=332472

Miguel

Most here just whine and complain. Ed's "relic rule 2". No suggestions, even when specifically asked. Just "whine, whine, whine, Rybka / Vas was treated unfairly, whine, whine, whine." Never mind following rules, ethics, etc.

You are a liar, I proposed various improvements from the beginning, don't confuse that with your selective memory.

1. From the beginning I suggested the use of similarity tester as an arbiter for participation which was adopted by the old board (Cock de Gorter) of the CSVN and further improved by the new CSVN board, Richard Pijl and Marcel van Kervinck.

2. I am the founder of the Programmer Code of Honor, a call for honesty, openness and transparency on which your own Mark Lefler said the ICGA should have something similar too.

I have been constructive, I am flexible, ready to listen to everything that is reasonable. You OTOH have shown nothing else than destruction bombarding every reasonable argument to keep things as they are while the world around you has changed.

You remind of those stiff-headed farmers who objected to modernize their living because they had a problem with machines. They all went bankrupt because they refused to recognize the changing times.

BTW, I loved your words: Is a 10-participant WCCC _really_ a "WCCC" event???"

It's hilarious.

[hgm]

If we look at engines that are in the top 20, then Hannibal, Protector, Spike, and Spark. And there are plenty of engines just outside the top 20 that could put in a good showing in a Swiss system tournament. Of course, my definition of a strong engine differs from that of others.

Well, Spark will be a tough call. Did you know its programmer lives in Leiden? Yet he doesn't conider it worth his time to participate there.

I don't know what is stopping Hannibal or Protector. We could ask their respective programmers. The default suspect is of course that it is too costly to attend the event.

On that subject, I think Bob's information if off. The total activities span only 7 days (including opening, conference and everything). But thhis time has to be divided between WCCC, WCSC and blitz tournament. Now in Yokohama it is true that they did this the stupid way, playing WCCC in the morning/afternoon, and the other in the afternoon/evening, so that both spanned 6 or 7 days. But because the two tournaments had exactly the same participants, no one objected or cared.

On the previous edition they followed my proposal to schedule the events after one another: 3 days of WCCC, blitz, 3 days of WCSC. Then participants only interested in the WCCC would only have to attend for 3 days. That still leaves time for eight 4-hour rounds (9:00-13:00, 13:30-17:30, 18:00-22:00) with lunch and pizza breaks, if you discount monday-morning for opening ceremony. Of course you could also squeeze in eleven 3-hour rounds: (9:00-12:00, 12:30-15:30, 15:30-18:30, 19:00-22:00).

All this is negociable, and based on past experience the ICGA seems to be pretty open-minded about it.

[Evert]

If we look at engines that are in the top 20, then Hannibal, Protector, Spike, and Spark. And there are plenty of engines just outside the top 20 that could put in a good showing in a Swiss system tournament. Of course, my definition of a strong engine differs from that of others.

Well, Spark will be a tough call. Did you know its programmer lives in Leiden? Yet he doesn't conider it worth his time to participate there.

There could, of course, be any number of reasons for that.

I haven't been to a CSVN event either, although I live next to a train station with a direct connection to Leiden that only takes half an hour. The reason is that I cannot easily afford to be away all weekend, both for recharging my batteries for the next week and because I have small kids.