World Chess Computer Champion?

[michiguel]

As far as prestige goes, TCEC is not a tournament in the strictest sense of the word. No one "gathers".

The only (or one of the few) programmers I did not see in the TCEC chat room is you, and that explains why you think nobody gathers.

When are the games played?

Is that a real question? Because if it is, you are giving an opinion on TCEC without knowing how it is organized.

I am in my office 8-5pm (or later with 6-7-8pm classes on occasion). Weekends are my only chance for the most part. An event that spans weeks is not exactly convenient.

Actually, it is very convenient and one of the secrets for its success! you can watch and chat with other spectators, programmers, and organizers the whole weekend if you want.

The CCT events are done over two days, and don't take all of both days.

I'm not looking for a new career watching a long-running chess tournament.

Many do watch it.

The ICGA events started off as 4 day events, once a year. Doable.

The time period is impossibly long to get a group together. So for max prestige, why is not topping CCRL the "cat's meow"?

The prestige of TCEC is not under debate.

So no response? Is longer better? CCRL is longer. Is shorter better? WCCC is shorter. So what makes something "in the middle" the most prestigious? Just a casual vote?

Response to what? The prestige cannot be debated. Prestige is given by spectators interest, coverage, impact outside the field, and peers respect, which drives motivation to prepare and win it. Just looking at how much talk and preparation for TCEC both SF and Komodo team had, it is great hint about how they respected the tournament. Not to mention that many other authors provided last minute development versions. Even between stages! I have not seen (non-author) FIDE titled players very interested in any other tournament outside TCEC. I saw some in TCEC chat rooms.

Miguel

[hgm]

I can see your point here. The difference, however, is that in your WC each operator has his own machine. In TCEC they do not. And personally, I think this idea of "single core" (and the fact that certain commercial programs still charge more for SMP) in the year 2014 is, well, just so 2002. Sometimes I feel that the computer chess community and it's body is stuck in the past, glory days of old - which is something I want to change with TCEC.

I don't think we have any real disagreements. And of course I understand that you did not buy this expensive hardware to waste it on running single-core engines. But the advantage of extra cores tails off as you have more, and it is very conceivable that a 4-core engine could be stronger than many 8-core engines. When Komodo was still single core it could already hold its own against most 4-core engines, and the difference between 1 and 4 cores should be much larger than between 4 and 8. So for a World Championship excluding programs just because they don't use enough cores would be totally arbitrary.

And you should be careful with this "so 2002" argument. In a sense a PC is already "so 2010". Almost everyone uses smartphones and tablets nowadays...

[sicilianquake87]

I am not interested in a book championship where engines go 20-30+ moves in book and end up in an endgame. So in TCEC the openings are created by other people. That is why all openings in this Season are created by Nelson Hernandez (Rybka forum) and Adam Hair. I have full confidence in their expertise in this area. With that said, I understand why it might disqualify an event in your eyes.

And this all idea could only come from a genius for how thrilling it is: basically asking the community to choose the ground where the battle should take place, creating expectations/excitement on everybody (authors and audience)...
This is simply marketing at its best. An appealing that ICGA has totally lost.

[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.

You seem to have missed the whole discussion following my post. I will not repeat myself, more so when arguing with you, a known epitome of sophistry and lack of acceptance for other's, usually more sound than yours arguments.

YOU brought up "resolving power to +/-30 Elo". That has exactly ZERO to do with a world championship "tournament". I can whip the hell out of TCEC's 30 Elo on my cluster. So what? Doesn't replace the WCCC. More accurate Elo does not come into play in a tournament. Only in something like world rankings. Some DO award their world champion ranking based on a year's worth of results rather than one tournament or match. Others don't. I don't see where I should be able to dictate how others run their sports. Nor show they be able to dictate how the ICGA runs its event.

[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.

[bob]

OK, thanks very much for the clarification. But I don't see that I have done TCEC any injustice in what I wrote about it earlier. Everything I "assumed" seems to be 100% correct.

No problem. And I see no injustice done here.

My intention is to discuss what I want / not want in a World Championship, and if I point out that TCEC does not have that you should not take that as criticism on TCEC, as it never claimed to be a World Championship.

I don't take it as criticism. Just making sure that you are basing your idea of TCEC on facts and not false information. And you are right, I have not added a "World Championship" text to the title of TCEC nor have I ever claimed it to be the "real" Word Championship.

A condition where you should support a minimum number of threads seems totally unacceptable for a World Championship.

I can see your point here. The difference, however, is that in your WC each operator has his own machine. In TCEC they do not. And personally, I think this idea of "single core" (and the fact that certain commercial programs still charge more for SMP) in the year 2014 is, well, just so 2002. Sometimes I feel that the computer chess community and it's body is stuck in the past, glory days of old - which is something I want to change with TCEC.

Forbidding use of books seems to disqualify an event completely as World Championship Computer Chess. Opening books are an integral part of Chess. It could still be a World Championship, but only for a particular aspect of Chess. Like the World Championship penalty shooting is not the same as the World Championship Soccer.

I am not interested in a book championship where engines go 20-30+ moves in book and end up in an endgame. So in TCEC the openings are created by other people. That is why all openings in this Season are created by Nelson Hernandez (Rybka forum) and Adam Hair. I have full confidence in their expertise in this area. With that said, I understand why it might disqualify an event in your eyes.

My concern about the book goes in a different direction. Nelson claimed to have chosen opening lines that have fewer than the normal number of draws. This sounds strange to me. I can think back to the early days of the Karpov and Kasparov competition where Karpov played rock-steady (but sometimes boring) chess, while Kasparov was always going for the Tal-like positions. It would seem that forcing the games into such positions would give an inherent advantage to Kasparov and harm Karpov since his style of play did not fit that so well.

It is hard to believe, I suppose, but most every program does better in some types of positions than it does in others. With its own book, it gets to reach the positions it plays better, if the author customized the book to do so. I personally do my testing much as you do your tournament, but I do not use a completely random set of positions for a real chess tournament book.

[bob]

As far as prestige goes, TCEC is not a tournament in the strictest sense of the word. No one "gathers".

The only (or one of the few) programmers I did not see in the TCEC chat room is you, and that explains why you think nobody gathers.

When are the games played?

Is that a real question? Because if it is, you are giving an opinion on TCEC without knowing how it is organized.

That was what is known as a "rhetorical question". Because the games are not spread over 6 hours on two consecutive days and then it is done. I thought that was obvious.

I am in my office 8-5pm (or later with 6-7-8pm classes on occasion). Weekends are my only chance for the most part. An event that spans weeks is not exactly convenient.

Actually, it is very convenient and one of the secrets for its success! you can watch and chat with other spectators, programmers, and organizers the whole weekend if you want.

Poor term. "whole weekend". Not a one-weekend event last time I looked.

The CCT events are done over two days, and don't take all of both days.

I'm not looking for a new career watching a long-running chess tournament.

Many do watch it.

Fine. I simply pointed out that I don't have the time or the interest to invest THAT much time in a long-running event.

The ICGA events started off as 4 day events, once a year. Doable.

The time period is impossibly long to get a group together. So for max prestige, why is not topping CCRL the "cat's meow"?

The prestige of TCEC is not under debate.

So no response? Is longer better? CCRL is longer. Is shorter better? WCCC is shorter. So what makes something "in the middle" the most prestigious? Just a casual vote?

Response to what? The prestige cannot be debated. Prestige is given by spectators interest, coverage, impact outside the field, and peers respect, which drives motivation to prepare and win it. Just looking at how much talk and preparation for TCEC both SF and Komodo team had, it is great hint about how they respected the tournament. Not to mention that many other authors provided last minute development versions. Even between stages! I have not seen (non-author) FIDE titled players very interested in any other tournament outside TCEC. I saw some in TCEC chat rooms.

Miguel

We've even had GM observers on CCT events...

Doesn't mean a thing as far as "prestige" goes.

prestige: reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.

You can have prestige as considered by the audience, or as considered by the performers. ICGA is about the latter. The programmers know what they will get when they arrive. They provide their own hardware, their own opening book, their own original program, and they compete against the rest of the field. I am not a fan of "uniform platform" because there is not just one platform to choose. I am not a fan of common book because most programs play better in some positions than others, and I don't like a coin-toss sort of opening position selection process.

Absolutely nothing wrong with TCEC. Absolutely nothing wrong with the way I test my changes. But NEITHER is the way I want to see the ultimate chess competition done.

[michiguel]

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

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.

[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.

[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

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.

Views change over time