World Chess Computer Champion?

[poet]

Well, you are obviously one of those consumers that applauds theft and cheating, and would like to see it elevated to the standard. Anything flies, as long as it provides you with cheap Elo, eh? To hell with rules and law.

Well, you can start your own CCCC organization ('Computer Chess for Crooks and Criminals). But you can be sure ICGA won't be part of it.

Thanks for slandering me and casting aspersions with no knowledge of my thoughts at all.

I guess you showed your true colours there.

My comment was not aimed at the decision of the ICGA, but at the horribly unprofessional way that decision was reached, voted on and the conduct of those in charge.

[hgm]

Remind me: Komodo team, in the person of the late Don Daley, was one of the instigators of that, right?

Wasn't he amongst the investigators that finally voted Rybka guity?

3. Of the remaining 24 chess programmers, seven of them were direct competitors of Rybka, namely the authors of chess engines Junior, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Hiarcs, Shredder and Rondo.

Yeah, they really did the right thing by boycotting ICGA for this scandalous behavior...

Next time do your homework!

[michiguel]

Leagues last months. World Championships and Olympic games etc tend to last a couple of weeks.

Harvey,

Every self respecting sport has a body that is recognized and endorsed by the vast majority of sportsmen / women. What once was since 2011 is no longer. Whatever the reason you have to act.

You keep making that pronouncement - the ICGA is no longer recognized.

Selective reading on your end, see the red above.

There is no reason to involve the Rybka controversy into the discussion. Forget about Rybka, it is what it is and doing nothing won't solve the above problem, the last 2½ year has proven that.

You will remember the days the WCCC and WMCCC were the yearly highlight, the magazins and CC fora exploded. That popularity halted (quite roughly) exactly when?

Circa 1997, to be exact. I assume you realize the significance of that date? Never was the same after that. Suddenly no TV crews showed up, no vendors kicked in tens of thousands of dollars or provided special hardware, etc.

You are not reading again. The WCCC's from 1998-2010 were just fine regarding popularity.

Now look up the number of postings of the last WCCC (Japan) here, there are hardly any.

You don't have to be a prophet to predict how this will end, if things already are not irreversable in the meantime by the 2½ year lack of action from David. As if doing nothing ever solved a problem.

Quite often, doing NOTHING is much better than doing something WRONG.

Yeah, do nothing about vice-world-champion LOOP (Amsterdam 2007), do nothing about Thinker, do not investgate Fritz 14.

Yeah... that kind of sweeping things under the carpet by silencing it.

I told you time and time again there will be no LOOP verdict. You promised there would be. Tell me your progress.

Sorry, but wrong. WC's since 1997 or so have fallen off drastically, both participation, publicity, sponsorships, etc. In the 80's and 90's we had live TV crews present every round, etc. My wife surprised me with a scrapbook in early 1984, the year after we won our first WCCC in New York in 1983. She had articles from all sorts of well-known publications. New York Times. Computer World. Wall Street Journal. Byte magazine. Chess Life and Review, ACM SigArt, this thing was about 3" thick. Had no idea there had been that kind of publicity until our USM publicity department started sending her all sorts of stuff. Today? Nada. Discussions on CCC or r.g.c.c are not the problem. It is the lack of interest everywhere else that forms the basis of the problem.

There WILL be a loop verdict.

Yes, hard to find ICGA in the NYT. But you still have computer chess there...
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01 ... blogs&_r=0

That is the whole point. If I guy with a computer in Sweden can do it (even on an age in which print media is becoming obsolete), how on earth an Institution cannot? We can debate forever what the reasons are, but at the end of the day, one is succeeding and the other is not.

Miguel

That is NOT the New York Times. That's a blog.

That is how the NYT put articles. That is the NYT.

Doesn't even have the facts correct since Rybka didn't win the last 4 WCCC events even...

This is the typical ICGA bashing nonsense. I gave you examples of the kind of publicity we got for ONE SINGLE 4 day tournament. Enough DIFFERENT sources to produce a scrapbook over 3" thick. And you offer up this kind of nonsense as to what the ICGA doesn't get today? There is no comparison between today and pre-1997.

It is not ICGA bashing, I am stating the fact that it is failing to attract as much as attention as Martin Tournament.

Miguel

[Ralph Stoesser]

They could have grabbed the title easily. ...

... because they are real World Champions?
... or because official World Championchip is a farce?

They would have to pass the originality test and they would have to spend time and money. Effort for exactly what? For the official right to deceive customers by calling themselfs World Champions? They also can do it without the effort and they should exactly do that to reestablish justice.

[RJN]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular....but WOW!

[bob]

Leagues last months. World Championships and Olympic games etc tend to last a couple of weeks.

Harvey,

Every self respecting sport has a body that is recognized and endorsed by the vast majority of sportsmen / women. What once was since 2011 is no longer. Whatever the reason you have to act.

You keep making that pronouncement - the ICGA is no longer recognized.

Selective reading on your end, see the red above.

There is no reason to involve the Rybka controversy into the discussion. Forget about Rybka, it is what it is and doing nothing won't solve the above problem, the last 2½ year has proven that.

You will remember the days the WCCC and WMCCC were the yearly highlight, the magazins and CC fora exploded. That popularity halted (quite roughly) exactly when?

Circa 1997, to be exact. I assume you realize the significance of that date? Never was the same after that. Suddenly no TV crews showed up, no vendors kicked in tens of thousands of dollars or provided special hardware, etc.

You are not reading again. The WCCC's from 1998-2010 were just fine regarding popularity.

Now look up the number of postings of the last WCCC (Japan) here, there are hardly any.

You don't have to be a prophet to predict how this will end, if things already are not irreversable in the meantime by the 2½ year lack of action from David. As if doing nothing ever solved a problem.

Quite often, doing NOTHING is much better than doing something WRONG.

Yeah, do nothing about vice-world-champion LOOP (Amsterdam 2007), do nothing about Thinker, do not investgate Fritz 14.

Yeah... that kind of sweeping things under the carpet by silencing it.

I told you time and time again there will be no LOOP verdict. You promised there would be. Tell me your progress.

Sorry, but wrong. WC's since 1997 or so have fallen off drastically, both participation, publicity, sponsorships, etc. In the 80's and 90's we had live TV crews present every round, etc. My wife surprised me with a scrapbook in early 1984, the year after we won our first WCCC in New York in 1983. She had articles from all sorts of well-known publications. New York Times. Computer World. Wall Street Journal. Byte magazine. Chess Life and Review, ACM SigArt, this thing was about 3" thick. Had no idea there had been that kind of publicity until our USM publicity department started sending her all sorts of stuff. Today? Nada. Discussions on CCC or r.g.c.c are not the problem. It is the lack of interest everywhere else that forms the basis of the problem.

There WILL be a loop verdict.

Yes, hard to find ICGA in the NYT. But you still have computer chess there...
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01 ... blogs&_r=0

That is the whole point. If I guy with a computer in Sweden can do it (even on an age in which print media is becoming obsolete), how on earth an Institution cannot? We can debate forever what the reasons are, but at the end of the day, one is succeeding and the other is not.

Miguel

That is NOT the New York Times. That's a blog.

That is how the NYT put articles. That is the NYT.

Doesn't even have the facts correct since Rybka didn't win the last 4 WCCC events even...

This is the typical ICGA bashing nonsense. I gave you examples of the kind of publicity we got for ONE SINGLE 4 day tournament. Enough DIFFERENT sources to produce a scrapbook over 3" thick. And you offer up this kind of nonsense as to what the ICGA doesn't get today? There is no comparison between today and pre-1997.

It is not ICGA bashing, I am stating the fact that it is failing to attract as much as attention as Martin Tournament.

Miguel

The NYT is a newspaper. Printed. That is a blog. Doesn't even have the facts right. And you cite ONE blog post from 2011 and claim that is better than ICGA events?

It appears, based on your research, it is not attracting ANY attention. 3 years old and counting.

[Rebel]

Komodo authors should never have backed down on this, no matter how much a couple of people cry and stomp their feet on an internet forum.

Agree, but the new Komodo programmer is a prominent ICGA member and thus squeezed between 2 opposite forces (interests).

[hgm]

They could have grabbed the title easily. ...

... because they are real World Champions?
... or because official World Championchip is a farce?

Because their major competitors were absent, of course. I don't think they would have a better than 30% chance when Houdini and Stockfish would have been there. Do you? The farce is of course Houdini. 150 Elo better than any competitor, claiming to be fully original, and still too chicken to participate because his chances would not be good enough.

They would have to pass the originality test...

I am sure Komodo is fully original, and would not have any problem at all to pass any originality test. In fact there would not even be an allegation against them.

... and they would have to spend time and money. Effort for exactly what? For the official right to deceive customers by calling themselfs World Champions?

Apparently something they very much like to do...

They also can do it without the effort and they should exactly do that to reestablish justice.

Sure. I can also get my groceries out of the supermarket without paying for them. Much cheaper. Very common. They even have a word for that, just taking stuff you want without taking the effort to pay for it. Don't quite recall what it was. But I don't believe it was 'justice'...

[mjlef]

Komodo authors should never have backed down on this, no matter how much a couple of people cry and stomp their feet on an internet forum.

Agree, but the new Komodo programmer is a prominent ICGA member and thus squeezed between 2 opposite forces (interests).

The fact that I am the Programmer's Representative for the ICGA had no bearing on the decision to clarify the headlines on the Komodo website. In fact, when Don and Larry asked me to join the Komodo team I contacted the ICGA President and told him I would resign from the position if he thought there was any conflict of interest. He asked me to stay and I did.

As a human, I am flawed, but I try to do the right things as best I can.

[bob]

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.

Titles are like paper money, they only possess value based upon belief.

If you want one such example, consider the name of International Computer Games Association. That is a pretty broad and rather presumptuous title. I doubt Starcraft II players, or BF4 players, or LoL players, etc., recognize its authority. And what outside party gave permission for the ICCA to change its title to ICGA? Were EA, EPIC, Microsoft, Bethesda, Sony, or Nintendo consulted? Did every nation state in the world sign off on validity of the ICGA? If they did not sign off on it, is the ICGA recognized by that nation state? And how is it even allowed to call itself such?

It is a construct of academia (and thus of man), period.

Where does all of this nonsense come from. A lesson in word usage:

International (noun): a game or contest between teams representing different countries in a sport.

I'm a member of the ICGA. I know people in England, Canada, England, France, etc that are members. So that word certainly fits.

"computer games" -> "games computers play". Seems to fit chess, go, all the other games the ICGA supports.

"association" (noun): a group of people organized for a joint purpose.

Certainly seems to fit. Absolutely NOTHING says every country on planet earth has to be a member, nor do they have to approve the formation of an association. I have a neighborhood association in the subdivision where I live. You have no say-so in what we do or whether the association is legitimate or not.

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.