World Chess Computer Champion?

[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

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?

No, it is not printed. By the way, how many read newspapers printed today? It is both, and the printed part is following the path of the Dodo. NYT has contributors that write articles in the form of blogs. One of them is a Nobel Laureate, for instance (Paul Krugman).

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

TCEC is being mentioned in every single chess outlet, being commented by GMs, not to mentioned being supported by Chessdom, who is being reached by a huge number of people. Houdini's fame skyrocketed among chess players after its victory in TCEC season 1. The chat that follows the games peaked at 400 people (what I saw), and 1500 when it was co-broadcasted with Anand-Carlsen. I saw there Argentinians following it from at least two different Universities, and since that is my home country the radio of one of them interviewed me (a complete amateur! the previous interviewee was GM Michael Adams).

So, the visibility that it is starting to have exceeds in orders of magnitude what the ICGA championship have. Yes, TCEC has three years, ICGA had more than three decades and it is in decline, very fast.

What I am saying is nothing really new, it is quite obvious. In fact, I am agreeing with you. Not you now, I am agree with your self a decade ago when you were complaining about ICGA's trends, and you truly questioned how much of a championship ICGA's were. You clearly preferred CCT then, did you not?. Thing got worse and worse. This cannot be denied and the point is that ICGA has not been successful to revert this trend. That is the reality.

I am not arguing that ICGA tournament should not be called World Championship, I am arguing that they have not done what is necessary to protect the prestige for a while. When that happens, other venues start to come up. Now the prestige has been taken over by TCEC. So, we are now with a World Championship with no prestige, and a tournament with a lot of prestige. When that happens, an unstable equilibrium arises that causes all these discussions.

Miguel

[sicilianquake87]

I am not arguing that ICGA tournament should not be called World Championship, I am arguing that they have not done what is necessary to protect the prestige for a while. When that happens, other venues start to come up. Now the prestige has been taken over by TCEC. So, we are now with a World Championship with no prestige, and a tournament with a lot of prestige. When that happens, an unstable equilibrium arises that causes all these discussions.

Miguel

Finally, somebody made it clear. Point is that there are now two chess universes and any attempt to make those two communicate seems impossible to say the least. In medio stat virtus.

[bob]

What makes you think I worry about anything?

It was you wanted to change the ICGA name. Glad you realize now that was a failure.

It was an obvious (not for you as we realize now) sarcastic suggestion following your pompous posts and the line of conduct in this thread. I don't think you or anybody else should be worried. As I said nobody cares, keep playing in your snob club, while attention,money, sponsors, time, suggestions, people fly elsewhere.

That is pretty funny. You should try sticking your nose in a F1 board meeting and tell them how they are doing things wrong, nobody is interested in cars where the engine costs north of $100K, etc. Or go to major league baseball and tell them they are incompetent, paying players too much, games are only held in big cities, etc.

Contrary to some software author (and I don't consider you in the list), all the sports you have cited care a lot about what the public wants and try to give them the best show they can.

They don't ask YOU how to run their events. They ask the participants.

[bob]

Contrary to some software author (and I don't consider you in the list), all the sports you have cited care a lot about what the public wants and try to give them the best show they can.

Again, not true at all. Key players are regularly suspended when they misbehave. They can be suspended for life if they engage in gambling or let themselves be bribed to throw matches. While the show would obviously be better with those players.

What they definitely not do, is adapt the rules. "Hey, an awfully large number of players are sent off the field for intentionally hurting their opponents, lately. We cannot have that, because the teams are running out of substitutions due to all those suspensions. So let's kicking your opponent against the knee legal."

Was Mr Hyatt talking about key players? Oh, he was not! Now who's the show-off?

If you can't even follow his point, why are you even bothering with the discussion?

Removing a player "hurts" the show. But it is done for a greater good, to discourage other players from breaking rules. It is really a simple concept.

[bob]

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

By this standard, members of the Linux development community could form the International Open Source Operating System Association, and then claim all non-linux open source operating systems are not "legitimate."

What a straw man argument. WHERE has the ICGA said any other WC is not legitimate. In fact, WHICH "other event" has even claimed to be a "world computer chess championship event?"

BTW, there IS a linux users group. I doubt they think windows is legitimate, for reasons you probably wouldn't understand. The ICGA has claimed NOTHING. They have simply hosted a WCCC event since 1977.

You are certainly free to form any organization or association you so desire, and to call it what you will. But that doesn't mean it matters to anyone outside of that association.

And nobody has said it DOES matter to anyone outside the ICGA. It is primarily a player's/participant's organization. They specifically cater to the players/participants. You want a spectator's association, form one. But don't expect the ICGA to change internal policies because you want them to.

We've been doing it ever sense. 37 years. That lends a lot of credibility to the organization.

History != credibility. Slavery in the United States lasted a fair bit longer than 37 years. A royal monarchy ruled France much longer than 37 years... The Inquisition...

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.

Exactly. And if those people did not need anyone's approval for such titles why does anyone else?

The argument was, quite simply, if you win a tournament, you are NOT automatically the world chess champion. There have been incredibly strong human events in past years. Not a single one of them claimed to be world champion until they played in an event titled "world chess championship". Seems simple enough.

[bob]

F1 is as much a competition of constructors as of drivers. Even the skill of the peaple in the pits for fueling and changing tires has a direct impact on the result.

I am not really interested in F1 racing, but wasn't this Schumacher guy kept out for a long time because he intentionally drove a competitor off the road? In this respect there isn't really any difference between F1 racing. Wrong-doers are suspended.

You seem to be grossly misinformed. Even someone like me who never spent a minute of his time watching F1 racing seems to understand it better than you...

Good example, so they banned the driver (for some time) not the car. I am not really interested in ICGA fake competitions but it seems they banned for life both author and the "plagiarized engine" (that includes obviously all his "sons"). You seems to be grossly misinformed too to make analogies in fields you don't know.

If someone races with an illegal car, BOTH get banned, sorry. Happened many times. You think they would say "hey, engine is illegal, ban the driver, but the car can run tomorrow?"

True. Is the ban for life? NO.

Perhaps ask Ben Johnson. Lance Armstrong. Pete Rose. Several others. You might get a little wiser. Lifetime bans are not common. But they exist. Particularly if the person of interest refuses to take responsibility for his actions or offer anything in his defense.

[bob]

Besides that you always bring silly and misplaced analogies. Like that the titles "World Champion" or "Olympic Champion" are not often misleading (in Cycling, Tennis, etc.).

Of course. World Championships in Soccer, Hockey, Track-and-Field, Swimming, Skating, Volleyball, Cycling , etc. etc. are all extremey misplaced analogies for a World Championship in Computer Chess. Obviously they have nothing to do with each other. They are just World Championships, and for Computer Chess we of course must have a World Championship in stead...

Who is being silly here?

What you don't acknowledge is that when there is parctically no difference in strength between the opponents, it is really not very relevant who is World Champion. Who cares about 30Elo?

Well, TCEC has a resolving power of ~30 points. And sure you are being silly here, because establishing the strongest is the _goal_ of a World Championship, that a WC doesn't have the resolving power to do that is a negative feature of that competition. In games of humans this is often the case because of the limited human resources. ICGA what, doesn't have enough electricity? I would like a statement from ICGA that they cannot afford more than 100kWh for their crappy, pre-historic championship with 150 points resolving power.

Sorry, but the world championship does NOT try to identify the strongest player in the world. Best way to do that is to take the #1 player on FIDE's list and give him the title each year.

A world championship tournament, as held for computer chess, has multiple purposes.

(1) attract interested programmers/developers to a central site where they can exchange ideas via discussion, formal presentation, etc. The attraction for the programmers is to play against other programs to see how their current program compares.

(2) attract future programmers/developers via the publicity the tournament attracts. IE to drive development forward.

To think that a 5-6-7-8-9 round tournament finds the best program in the world is utter nonsense. There are lots of development projects going on that don't compete for various reasons. You can't even guarantee you have the strongest programs playing, much less that the strongest will win a Swiss gambit.

The title "world champion" simply means that at a specific date in time, a specific group of players came together and played a Swiss tournament, and player X won and was awarded the title of "world champion." It means no more nor no less than that. Certainly not that the winner is the best there is.

It seems that many simply do not understand the basic concepts, which makes the discussions go way off course.

[sicilianquake87]

If you can't even follow his point, why are you even bothering with the discussion?

Removing a player "hurts" the show. But it is done for a greater good, to discourage other players from breaking rules. It is really a simple concept.

There is no point at all in the hierarchic system he is supporting (he doesn't even accept the possibility that he might be wrong and keeps coming only with examples that flot his boat ignoring all the rest). Banning the best player for life hurts the show but there is no greater good (you're just inventing one) for anybody, apart from the programmers that keep participating to claim they are World Champions and sell. In fact who are the ones that keep defending the fort?
If you don't understand we're shouting the war is over and it's time to count the victims and decide if this is the line of conduct we want to keep also for the future or not.

What makes you think I worry about anything?

It was you wanted to change the ICGA name. Glad you realize now that was a failure.

It was an obvious (not for you as we realize now) sarcastic suggestion following your pompous posts and the line of conduct in this thread. I don't think you or anybody else should be worried. As I said nobody cares, keep playing in your snob club, while attention,money, sponsors, time, suggestions, people fly elsewhere.

That is pretty funny. You should try sticking your nose in a F1 board meeting and tell them how they are doing things wrong, nobody is interested in cars where the engine costs north of $100K, etc. Or go to major league baseball and tell them they are incompetent, paying players too much, games are only held in big cities, etc.

Contrary to some software author (and I don't consider you in the list), all the sports you have cited care a lot about what the public wants and try to give them the best show they can.

They don't ask YOU how to run their events. They ask the participants.

Yes, but when deciding the "how", they also think "what I would like" and then decide to sell their rights to tv, to sell their tickets and so on.

[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?

No, it is not printed. By the way, how many read newspapers printed today? It is both, and the printed part is following the path of the Dodo. NYT has contributors that write articles in the form of blogs. One of them is a Nobel Laureate, for instance (Paul Krugman).

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

TCEC is being mentioned in every single chess outlet, being commented by GMs, not to mentioned being supported by Chessdom, who is being reached by a huge number of people. Houdini's fame skyrocketed among chess players after its victory in TCEC season 1. The chat that follows the games peaked at 400 people (what I saw), and 1500 when it was co-broadcasted with Anand-Carlsen. I saw there Argentinians following it from at least two different Universities, and since that is my home country the radio of one of them interviewed me (a complete amateur! the previous interviewee was GM Michael Adams).

So, the visibility that it is starting to have exceeds in orders of magnitude what the ICGA championship have. Yes, TCEC has three years, ICGA had more than three decades and it is in decline, very fast.

What I am saying is nothing really new, it is quite obvious. In fact, I am agreeing with you. Not you now, I am agree with your self a decade ago when you were complaining about ICGA's trends, and you truly questioned how much of a championship ICGA's were. You clearly preferred CCT then, did you not?. Thing got worse and worse. This cannot be denied and the point is that ICGA has not been successful to revert this trend. That is the reality.

I am not arguing that ICGA tournament should not be called World Championship, I am arguing that they have not done what is necessary to protect the prestige for a while. When that happens, other venues start to come up. Now the prestige has been taken over by TCEC. So, we are now with a World Championship with no prestige, and a tournament with a lot of prestige. When that happens, an unstable equilibrium arises that causes all these discussions.

Miguel

The ICGA is not perfect. But they ARE doing what the programmers request, namely using a set of rules the programmers have agreed on over the years, modified here and there over the years, and then enforcing those rules the best they can. I don't really care who claims to be what nowadays. All I want is to play in tournaments with zero derivatives, period. No exceptions. No grey areas. The ICGA tries to provide that, just as we have in the CCT events. That it excludes some is simply tough. Someone is free to create a calling-all-clones tournament if they want. I won't play. I don't care who does, it is still a free world.

The biggest problem I see is that many are whining about rule 2 being outdated. Yet NOBODY has offered any suggestions on how to improve rule 2. I certainly want to see it clarified a great deal. To get rid of the stupid excuses like "yes, if you type the code, then it is original." The rule needs to be expanded to a full page, apparently, carefully spelling out what most of us can figure out, namely what is original and what is not.

As far as prestige goes, TCEC is not a tournament in the strictest sense of the word. No one "gathers". The time period is impossibly long to get a group together. So for max prestige, why is not topping CCRL the "cat's meow"? WAY more games, WAY LESS error. The ICGA event is 7-9 rounds depending on the year. I suppose one could argue that Wijk Aan Zee was more prestigious than some of the past world championship cycles, where there were zonals (some of which had lousy players) where everyone worked their way up through those, to the inter-zonals, and finally to the final 1-1 match with the previous world champion. Wijk Aan Zee events have collected some of the strongest groups of GM players ever in one location. Certainly a stronger field than some of the older WC events. Yet the WC event awarded the title "World Chess Champion" all the same, even as many were going "wow!" at the Wijk Aan Zee tournaments.

[hgm]

For the original topic of this thread it might be useful to add that Komodo has pushed just as hard as anyone, if not harder than most, to uphold the ICGA rules.