World Chess Computer Champion?

[Adam Hair]

Whatever it is, ICGA is failing to attract players. A while ago, it started to fail to attract quantity, now it is quality.

But did it occur to you that this failure to attract participants is exactly because it is a World Championship?

Somewhat over a year ago Peter Skinner tried to organize an 'On-Line Computer-Chess World Championship', with rules that were assumed to repair what was wrong with the ICGA rules. (More games to eliminate the influence of luck, more lenient policy towards derivatives, no expensive travel.) There was exactly one entrant...

Some think that their commercial interests are better served by not participating and then denying that the event had any validity, because of their absence, rather than run the risk to be defeated.

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

[Adam Hair]

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.

When you say "involve all", do you mean include everyone who submits an engine, or do you mean include everyone who submits an engine that they have devoted a significant amount of work and time to create? To allow anyone who submits an engine to compete does not necessarily create a fair competition.

[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.

[JoshPettus]

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.

[hgm]

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.

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?

[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?

[AdminX]

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'?

I would not go that far as Hiarcs chose/ requested not to participant in TCEC Season 6 and Martin did respect his wishes. In any event I would say that TCEC is a private event being broadcast publicly.

[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.

When you say "involve all", do you mean include everyone who submits an engine, or do you mean include everyone who submits an engine that they have devoted a significant amount of work and time to create? To allow anyone who submits an engine to compete does not necessarily create a fair competition.

My "involve all" was an attempt to make ICGA members consider the issue and also the general dissatisfaction (can I say this?) that was created. I am not asking to reconsider a past decision but to analyze the present and consider if those rules still make sense. You proposed two options and I would choose the second (there must be a relevant amount of work in an engine).
Mine is a simple fan opinion that wants to see something more from the competition that awards the Computer Champion trophy. As I said it's impossible to give a solution for me because I can hardly enter in details.

[hgm]

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.

The discussion was about Komodo calling itself World Champion. You don't have to know about how TCEC is conducted to know that to be a false claim.

As to the voters: did you know that pi once was voted to be equal to 3.00000?

That would have been quite different 2½ years ago.

Something must have happened, but what?

Starnge question. How many people did know about TCEC 2.5 years ago?

[Martin Thoresen]

You don't have to know about how TCEC is conducted to know that to be a false claim.

Please do enlighten me on how TCEC is conducted Mr. Muller.