ICGA Forum

[bob]

Here is the full text of my email to David. I see no problem in posting my own email, so here goes:

==============================================================Just a note to those involved. This is the sort of action that makes me
regret my decision in 1977 to get involved with Swets and form the ICCA
in the first place. Changing a rule with _no_ discussion. And a change
that makes no sense and goes counter to what has been done for 35 years
of WCCC events, a change that the majority of programmers do not
support, a change that programmers had no say-so in instituting. I
assume the ultimate goal here is to kill the WCCC. It has hardly had
any participants compared to the online events we have been hosting
yearly where 40-50-60 programs is quite common. And now you want to
turn it into a vanilla event. Why not just have the WCCC, but rather
than playing any games, just take the top program on the SSDF or CCRL
list and award them the title, since those are uniform-platform events
already.

I'll bet Monty is cringing in disgust. As are most of us that have been
doing this for so long.

For the record, I won't be participating in any future WCCC events that
keep this rule in place, neither by personally attending or having
someone operate my program. If the only vote I get in this kind of
process is with my feet, I'm voting and won't show up.

I find it completely dishonest to say "it is too late to change the rule
back" when it wasn't too late to change it the first time with no
advanced notice for anyone. Give me a break...

I'll start with a break from the WCCC events since the CCT/ACCA events
are better attended and are done in a _far_ superior methodology using
an automatic interface, etc. The WCCC events (and the ICCA/ICGA) have
been stuck in the dark ages for years. Now they have regressed even
further.

I wonder why, since the decisions are being made by those that do not
even compete or do computer chess related research any longer?

All I can say is "wow". How far we have come. And in the _wrong_
direction.



Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D. Computer and Information Sciences
hyatt@uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 136A Campbell Hall
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

[bob]

They want to destroy the WCCC. Let 'em have at it. We've seen absolutely horrible decisions made _during_ an event (letting an operator overrule a program, offer a draw when in a dead won position, etc) So the decision was made in a vacuum, and can't be changed? Just guarantees that I will not be playing in any future WCCC events at all, even through an operator as I have done in the past.

WCCC. May it RIP.

Agreed. However for the commercial engine authors, the possibility of using "world champion" in their marketing and web sites is far too important for them to boycott the event. So for those that do stand a chance of winning (and lets face it, with so few games it is a bit of a lottery anyway) I'd say they will still be there. You'll still see Rybka, Hiarcs for example

The problem with this issue is that you can't trust the commercial program authors, because they have a vested interest in what goes on. So they might say _publicly_ that they want open hardware, but I can _guarantee_ you that some author has told Levy that a uniform-hardware event would be better. But you won't get any author to admit saying that because it would look bad.

I'm more up front. No restrictions. run whatcha brung and see what happens. No excuses. No whining. Just play chess. And while they are changing rules, how about finally going to an automated move entry system and enter the 21st century???

[diep]

This is the ridiculous bit:

In regard to the precise wording of the rules for 2009, the ICGA would
encourage you to discuss your thoughts on the details of the rule. This is
NOT an invitation to support or oppose the idea of 8-cores for 2009, since
that decision has alreday been made. It is invitation to help refine the
rule in a pracical and fair manner.

There is no reason AT ALL that the 2009 rules need to be set in stone NOW, there is plenty of time to act depending on the discussion. If they have time to refine and define it, they have time to ditch it and revert to the status-quo.

They want to destroy the WCCC. Let 'em have at it. We've seen absolutely horrible decisions made _during_ an event (letting an operator overrule a program, offer a draw when in a dead won position, etc) So the decision was made in a vacuum, and can't be changed? Just guarantees that I will not be playing in any future WCCC events at all, even through an operator as I have done in the past.

WCCC. May it RIP.

Bob i know how tempting it is for us all to post what you posted here. That is however not a clever decision. It is a world title. Scaring away participants just means they can keep more from the money instead of paying it out to tickets/travel.

ICGA gets now exactly what they want to and we haven't met in person yet.

Vincent

[bob]

This is the ridiculous bit:

In regard to the precise wording of the rules for 2009, the ICGA would
encourage you to discuss your thoughts on the details of the rule. This is
NOT an invitation to support or oppose the idea of 8-cores for 2009, since
that decision has alreday been made. It is invitation to help refine the
rule in a pracical and fair manner.

There is no reason AT ALL that the 2009 rules need to be set in stone NOW, there is plenty of time to act depending on the discussion. If they have time to refine and define it, they have time to ditch it and revert to the status-quo.

They want to destroy the WCCC. Let 'em have at it. We've seen absolutely horrible decisions made _during_ an event (letting an operator overrule a program, offer a draw when in a dead won position, etc) So the decision was made in a vacuum, and can't be changed? Just guarantees that I will not be playing in any future WCCC events at all, even through an operator as I have done in the past.

WCCC. May it RIP.

Bob i know how tempting it is for us all to post what you posted here. That is however not a clever decision. It is a world title. Scaring away participants just means they can keep more from the money instead of paying it out to tickets/travel.

ICGA gets now exactly what they want to and we haven't met in person yet.

Vincent

I have exchanged 6-8 emails with David in the past week about this subject. He claims that because Paderborn and then Leiden was cancelled, that "hardware" was the reason and he decided to make this change. Harvey pointed out that he planned on entering the WCCC, the time was not too long, etc. When I looked, they didn't play in the last 3 WCCC events and I decided to quit looking at that point. So they take advice from non-participants, over objections of past participants?

It was a bad decision. It is a bad decision. And that is nothing new to the ICGA in recent years either... They changed the WCCC from a 3-4 day event to a 9-10 day event (+ two more days to reach exotic locations and have time to get set up). They continue to rely on manual move entry when chess server software has been available for almost 20 years now. And yet David concludes that the lack of participation is a result of unlimited hardware when for the first 30 years or so of the WCCC it was not a problem at all, and, in fact, was a major attraction for the events...

[mhull]

...unlimited hardware...in fact, was a major attraction for the events...

Right. The WCCC is supposed to be the heavyweight championship, the UFC of computer chess, a top-fuel competition. Now they want to turn it into the special olympics.

[CRoberson]

On the topic of hand interfacing, I can understand it a bit.

The problem is three fold: some support UCI, others support
xboard/winboard and others have proprietary interfaces.
The UCI to Winboard converters are insufficient and
so are the reverse. There would be a "home court" advantage if one
interface is picked. It seems that the best meeting point is hand
interfacing for engines supporting differing protocols. However,
people could use servers when opponents support the same protocols,
but this requires obtaining support from two servers (say ICC and
playchess).

Hand interfacing must remain an option to allow people to develop
on any platform they wish such as cell phones....

The lack of sufficient protocol converting may be the reason
many UCI engines don't support CCT and ACCA.

[CThinker]

On the topic of hand interfacing, I can understand it a bit.

The problem is three fold: some support UCI, others support
xboard/winboard and others have proprietary interfaces.
The UCI to Winboard converters are insufficient and
so are the reverse. There would be a "home court" advantage if one
interface is picked. It seems that the best meeting point is hand
interfacing for engines supporting differing protocols. However,
people could use servers when opponents support the same protocols,
but this requires obtaining support from two servers (say ICC and
playchess).

Hand interfacing must remain an option to allow people to develop
on any platform they wish such as cell phones....

The lack of sufficient protocol converting may be the reason
many UCI engines don't support CCT and ACCA.

In the last ACCA tournament (played at ICC), the top two rated engines played - Rybka (with 40 cores) and Naum. Both are UCI engines. So, I don't think anyone can use UCI as an excuse for not being able to play on ICC.

If you think about it, that's the "World Computer Chess Championship" right there, at an "automated" ACCA tournament "online" - the current two best engines in the world, in their "best hardware". That did not happen in the last WCCC (Naum was not there). While there are talks of replacing the WCCC, it already has been.

And btw, just recently, Glaurung on iPhone has started playing on ICC.

Those who can't progress with automated games can choose to manually enter their moves, but they should not hold up the rest.

[Mike S.]

When I looked, they didn't play in the last 3 WCCC events and I decided to quit looking at that point. So they take advice from non-participants, over objections of past participants?

Hiarcs participated in Bejing 2008 and finished second, 7.0/9. Also, Hiarcs was (micro-) world champion in 1993.

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/program.php?id=53

Harvey quotes a statement of Mark Uniacke in the ICGA forum:

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... rt=20#p253

[Harvey Williamson]

When I looked, they didn't play in the last 3 WCCC events and I decided to quit looking at that point. So they take advice from non-participants, over objections of past participants?

Hiarcs participated in Bejing 2008 and finished second, 7.0/9. Also, Hiarcs was (micro-) world champion in 1993.

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/program.php?id=53

Harvey quotes a statement of Mark Uniacke in the ICGA forum:

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... rt=20#p253

In fact over the last few years we have played in almost everything. Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, WCCC Beijing, Thüringen etc.... Winning at Paderborn and Thüringen and always 2nd or 3rd in 5 consecutive leiden tournaments . So I guess Bob did not look that hard. We had entered the recently cancelled Paderborn tournament.

We are also currently entered in the CSS Masters and King of Engines tournaments on Playchess. The only other engine playing latest betas in these is Sjeng.

[lexdom]

Harvey quotes a statement of Mark Uniacke in the ICGA forum:

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... rt=20#p253

Hi Rémi,

I am not member of the CCC group or an active reader of the CCC forum but I have heard about these negative comments. In the one post I was told about I saw Vincent Diepeveen claimed he spoke to me online and that the proposal of a hardware limit came from me - both of these claims by Vincent are a complete fabrication. I prefer to not get dragged into all the mud slinging that goes on in these forums since it drains the energy from what is important but I needed to point that out to you in case you were under the wrong impression.

I have to say that if the production of violent anger is the driving force in changing decisions then we have mob rule and intimidation. Surely these are not the attributes on which to change or make decisions.

The first I heard of this hardware limit idea was when I receieved the general email from Johanna Hellemons about the proposal. I did respond in favour of it and I remain in favour of it. Judging from what you have said perhaps that is enough to get me lynched by some?

I don't think we can base a decision change on the fact one or two programmers may want to invest huge resources into expensive hardware since were we to do that the emphasises would be on any other programmers to do the same if they to want to compete. Otherwise this could be seen as being akin to someone trying to buy the title.

What is the purpose of the WCCC?

Surely it is to have a competition between the world's top chess systems for the title of World Champion. If the disparity between the hardware of each "competitor" is so great that the chances of success for most competitors is almost nil it no longer becomes a competition but instead a procession.

Recently we have seen the long standing Paderborn tournament cancelled because there were insufficient entries. Why would this be?

I believe it is because the overwhelming majority of people see little chance of competing on a level playing field because the hardware being used by the strongest programs is now so much faster than the other potential competitors that the race is practically run before it has started.

Contrary to popular opinion selling chess software makes a very limited income and certainly not one that can allow us to compete in a hardware race. The same is true of nearly all the other commercial authors let alone the amateur ones. Perhaps those in academia might be able to harness the necessary resources but for the majority it is only a dream.

In the last two tournaments alone, in terms of hardware, even though we were on faster h/w than many others we were about a factor of 5 behind some other contestants. Eventually we like apparently everyone else has to ask if it is worth the cost and effort of trying to maintain a presence in an expensive losing "hardware arms race".

We enter each competition with the target to win it, if that no longer becomes a possibility then we have to ask what is the point of entering. Apparently the same is true of the vast majority of other programmers since they are voting with their feet and not entering these tournaments.

We are willing to give up our h/w advantage to see a more level playing field since I believe that makes for a more exciting and competitive competition. Some disagree with me and prefer no limits but in the knowledge that competition is stifled.

I think Formula-1 racing is a good example with commonality to our situation. Each team can select their own driver, engine, chassis and other components within a framework of rules. That framework is reviewed on an on-going basis just as the ICGA has undertaken to review this decision. The purpose of the framework in F1 is to make the competition more competitive and allow more teams to compete than would be the case if there were no limits. Surely this is a good thing?

Best wishes,
Mark