An idea for a new WCCC format - what do you think?

[Vasik Rajlich]

book authors tend to form clusters and work together, exchanging their books regularly inside their small group (...)

I am not so sure this is common practice among top engine book authors ...

Sure there are book exchanges and competitions, specially on rybka's forum, among amateurs who all use rybka 3 on playchess' server and try to reach a high rating there.

But I never heard that the official book authors of Naum, Zap, Hiarcs, Shredder, Junior, Fritz or even Rybka to name a few top ones exchange anything regarding favored book lines.

Marc

You're right, this doesn't (appear to) happen among the computer chess teams. It does happen among the freestyle teams.

My real point is: books should be treated like engines, even if in practice there are some differences in the way authors work.

Vas

[CRoberson]

Ok, this years WCCC will start in a few weeks. We need verify
that we agree so it can be discussed at the event.

Code: Select all

  1) The tournament should be completely held over a sever.
  2) The first half of the tournament is held only over the sever
       to shorten the time, effort and cost of the event on the 
       participants.
  3) The second half of the tournament is held at a physical site
       with authors/operators but all is still handled over the internet via a
       server. 
  4) The server should be a known server instead of a special
      setup for the tournament. (not sure about this one).
  5) Participants should kibitz and follow the typical rules of the other
       online events.
  6) Programs should submit log files after each game (near term).
  7) Programs should submit log file info in real time for each game (long term).

Other than that, things go as normal for the WCCC except that
the event is now fully automated as covered in (5).

Did I miss anything? There was much discussion on books and such, but those seem to be side issues that apply no matter how the
tournament is run. Thus, they can be brought up at any time.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Ok, this years WCCC will start in a few weeks.

Are you talking about the Rapid thing or are you going to organize the WCCC separately?

[diep]

In the last WCCC in Beijing there were specific rules concerning the use of opening books. The rules stated (if I recall correctly) that each book author can only be part of one team (= program+GUI+book). To prevent other chess programs using the same book, each team had to reveil its book author before the start of the tournament, who also had to give permission that his book was being used.

I asked the ICGA about this issue as soon as my Rybka 3 book had become available through ChessBase. The former rules didn't prevent the situation that a chess programmer would buy the Rybka 3 book and use it in the WCCC.

Of course the new rules would not rule out everything, but IMO they were a clear improvement.

I understand that means that Tiger nor Rebel nor Rybka ever can join an event as they use your book also?

So you basically state that what happened in past is illegal, namely that several engines at same time, Tiger and Rebel, joined events with a Noomen book?

What made you modify your viewpoint on that?

I believe in consequent decision taking, not in flipping sides each few years whatever suits you best at that time, as that would make you look like an ICGA board member.

Oh note that i forgot to mention that Sjeng's book original was made by Jeroen also, so in its basis probably still has a few of those lines as well.

The consensus for ICGA a few years ago was that if a book author had authorized a programmer to use a book his, it could be used.

It would be silly to change that now. Many book authors provide 2 or 3 engines with a book. Right now Diep and Baron for example have Arturo Ochoa as their book author.

It would be very silly to suddenly forbid that now, something that first was getting used by Jeroen himself.

Vincent

[diep]

book authors tend to form clusters and work together, exchanging their books regularly inside their small group (...)

I am not so sure this is common practice among top engine book authors ...

Sure there are book exchanges and competitions, specially on rybka's forum, among amateurs who all use rybka 3 on playchess' server and try to reach a high rating there.

But I never heard that the official book authors of Naum, Zap, Hiarcs, Shredder, Junior, Fritz or even Rybka to name a few top ones exchange anything regarding favored book lines.

Marc

You're right, this doesn't (appear to) happen among the computer chess teams. It does happen among the freestyle teams.

My real point is: books should be treated like engines, even if in practice there are some differences in the way authors work.

Vas

In which case you are not allowed to use jeroen's books anymore, as a lot of years before you were there with jeroen's book, Jeroens book already was supplied to DeepSjeng. As that was also getting sold like that, at any given time DeepSjeng has the right to use that book or base his current book at that. I assume DeepSjeng still has lines from back then.

So that is Jeroen's work and even more than giving permission it was getting sold as such also with DeepSjeng.

In short that would mean you can't use Jeroen's book using this philosophy.

Same thing for EGTBs.

Also i remember more than 1 event; Especially i remember CSVN event where Diep played Tiger. Diep white. A certain line the combination diep+arturo didn't react very well at it. Jeroen entered the room laughed at me and had Rebel load the same book and repeat the exact same line against Diep. This whereas the default book of Rebel would not have played this.

If you'd argue that *this* way of acting is not very nice, to specifically load the same book with the intention of repeating the same line, then i would argue that is a discussion you can keep.

Let's just keep consequent here and use the rule that was getting used.

Let's not invent new stuff suddenly here just because it suits you.

[CRoberson]

Ok, this years WCCC will start in a few weeks.

Are you talking about the Rapid thing or are you going to organize the WCCC separately?

I am talking about the ICGA event. The idea of this post was to
organize ourselves before the ICGA event. Then bring the ideas to
the ICGA collectively. This should have more impact and they should
take us more seriously. If that doesn't happen then either they thought
of something we didn't or they ignored us. If the latter, then .....

[bob]

Ok, this years WCCC will start in a few weeks.

Are you talking about the Rapid thing or are you going to organize the WCCC separately?

I am talking about the ICGA event. The idea of this post was to
organize ourselves before the ICGA event. Then bring the ideas to
the ICGA collectively. This should have more impact and they should
take us more seriously. If that doesn't happen then either they thought
of something we didn't or they ignored us. If the latter, then .....

You used a ridiculous word juxtaposed to ICGA. "thought". What "thought" process do you believe might have come up with the 8-core hardware limit? What "thought" process came up with an event that takes almost 2 weeks to get to, participate in, and then return home from? What "thought" process maintains that it is better to continue with manual move relay between computers in a "computer chess" tournament? The list goes on and on...


Boy do you have a _lot_ to learn.

[diep]

Ok, this years WCCC will start in a few weeks.

Are you talking about the Rapid thing or are you going to organize the WCCC separately?

I am talking about the ICGA event. The idea of this post was to
organize ourselves before the ICGA event. Then bring the ideas to
the ICGA collectively. This should have more impact and they should
take us more seriously. If that doesn't happen then either they thought
of something we didn't or they ignored us. If the latter, then .....

Don't forget to give Tel Aviv and The Hague a CC of your thoughts.

No need to CC Levy in London, as that's going to get in the spam box anyway.

Thanks,
Vincent

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

I am talking about the ICGA event. The idea of this post was to
organize ourselves before the ICGA event. Then bring the ideas to
the ICGA collectively. This should have more impact and they should
take us more seriously. If that doesn't happen then either they thought
of something we didn't or they ignored us. If the latter, then .....

There is absolutely no point in "bringing the ideas to the ICGA".

It's already been explained crystal-clear to the ICGA how the participants think about the rule change (just see their forum).

It should already be very clear now how serious the ICGA takes it's members.

Because it was so clear, this discussion exists. Let's please not go around in circles and have the delusion the solution somehow involves the ICGA.

[Rémi Coulom]

I am talking about the ICGA event. The idea of this post was to
organize ourselves before the ICGA event. Then bring the ideas to
the ICGA collectively. This should have more impact and they should
take us more seriously. If that doesn't happen then either they thought
of something we didn't or they ignored us. If the latter, then .....

There is absolutely no point in "bringing the ideas to the ICGA".

It's already been explained crystal-clear to the ICGA how the participants think about the rule change (just see their forum).

It should already be very clear now how serious the ICGA takes it's members.

Because it was so clear, this discussion exists. Let's please not go around in circles and have the delusion the solution somehow involves the ICGA.

The only way to change the ICGA would be to get rid of David Levy and Jaap van den Herik. Unfortunately, I cannot see who could replace them.

Maybe, a potential alternative would be the CIG community:
http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/cig08/
I do not know them very well. They seem to be more healthy that the ICGA. But maybe too academic for my taste.

I would be curious to know Jonathan Schaeffer's point of view about the ICGA. I don't understand why he does not participate more in the activities of the association.

Rémi