World Chess Computer Champion?

[hgm]

I haven't been to a CSVN event either, although I live next to a train station with a direct connection to Leiden that only takes half an hour. The reason is that I cannot easily afford to be away all weekend, both for recharging my batteries for the next week and because I have small kids.

Sure, I am not claiming their couldn't be perfectly valid reasons for this. But what holds for a weekend next doors would hold to a much larger degree for a 5-day trip far abroad.

The question is how to solve that. Most of the fun for these events is being there (or winning, but only very few would have that incentive). So if you cannot come or watch, there really is little incentive for an author to take steps to participate in his absence.

So the only way to get such programs is to organize everything on behalf of the author, running the program for him, on a machine made available by the organizers), and push him to participate that way, In that respect it doesn't make much difference whether it is an on-site or an on-line tournament.

[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.

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.

Why don't you raise the issue in a separate thread here? Ask exactly what their issues are/were? Most will likely address the Rybka issue and nothing else. Of those, the majority will probably mention the verdict as their primary complaint.

But raise the issue and see what you get. Forget this imaginary 20 programmer number. I'd only consider input from those that have actually ATTENDED a WCCC event at some point in time, i.e. a real participant, rather than those that have never experienced the events at all.

Democracy out, elitism in, you never cease to amaze me.

Do you ever read? "why don't you raise the issue here in a separate thread? Ask what the programmer's issues are." Does that sound "anti-democratic"? What is wrong with you?

You certainly never fail to amaze ME.

[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."

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

Most here just whine and complain. Ed's "relic rule 2". No suggestions, even when specifically asked. Just "whine, whine, whine, Rybka / Vas was treated unfairly, whine, whine, whine." Never mind following rules, ethics, etc.

You are a liar, I proposed various improvements from the beginning, don't confuse that with your selective memory.

1. From the beginning I suggested the use of similarity tester as an arbiter for participation which was adopted by the old board (Cock de Gorter) of the CSVN and further improved by the new CSVN board, Richard Pijl and Marcel van Kervinck.

2. I am the founder of the Programmer Code of Honor, a call for honesty, openness and transparency on which your own Mark Lefler said the ICGA should have something similar too.

I have been constructive, I am flexible, ready to listen to everything that is reasonable. You OTOH have shown nothing else than destruction bombarding every reasonable argument to keep things as they are while the world around you has changed.

You remind of those stiff-headed farmers who objected to modernize their living because they had a problem with machines. They all went bankrupt because they refused to recognize the changing times.

BTW, I loved your words: Is a 10-participant WCCC _really_ a "WCCC" event???"

It's hilarious.

None of that has one thing to do with improving rule 2. I asked you SPECIFICALLY, right here, in this very thread a few posts back, to offer suggestions and start a discussion about what rule 2 should look like.

The silence was deafening.

I do not consider copying the code of others to be "acceptable changing times." Sorry. Never will.

[hgm]

I do not consider copying the code of others to be "acceptable changing times." Sorry. Never will.

Well, I think that needs to be qualified a bit. Some code (open source) is actually intended to be copied. The current rule 2 is not really tailored to handle that case. The whole idea of open-source code is that it grows into an unorganized collective effort, to which people contribute year after year, until it grows into something good. Some contribute more, others contribute less. The one who started it doesn't always have to be the one that contributed most. It can not always be traced back who contributed something, and people that made important contributions could be dead or hiding.

So it is a bit impractical to require that everyone that contributed would have to give explicit written permission to enter that code in WCCC. And that would in practice exclude that code from participating, for no good reason I can see. Especially since in a legal sense the authors have already granted such permission through the open-source license they attached to their code.

So I think it would be a logical clarification of rule #2 to state that no further permission would be needed to run with open-source code other than the license agreement attached to it. Of course that does not mean the code should be allowed to run twice. But when such a conflict would occur, (and it remains to be seen whether it ever would), it could either be left at the discretion of the organizers to decide who to admit. (E.g. they could require a qualifier match between the incompatible contenders, or take the strongest based on a rating list, or the oldest.)

If there is good, original and fully legal code, it cannot be the purpose of rule #2 to exclude it from participating (once) based on some silly technicality. That would mean there is something wrong with rule #2, rather than with the code...

[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.

Why don't you raise the issue in a separate thread here? Ask exactly what their issues are/were? Most will likely address the Rybka issue and nothing else. Of those, the majority will probably mention the verdict as their primary complaint.

But raise the issue and see what you get. Forget this imaginary 20 programmer number. I'd only consider input from those that have actually ATTENDED a WCCC event at some point in time, i.e. a real participant, rather than those that have never experienced the events at all.

Democracy out, elitism in, you never cease to amaze me.

Do you ever read? "why don't you raise the issue here in a separate thread? Ask what the programmer's issues are." Does that sound "anti-democratic"? What is wrong with you?

You certainly never fail to amaze ME.

Robert Hyatt - Forget this imaginary 20 programmer number.

Robert Hyatt - I'd only consider input from those that have actually ATTENDED a WCCC event at some point in time, i.e. a real participant, rather than those that have never experienced the events at all.

There have to be a sane base for a discussion, with an exclusion attitude like yours it's unlikely it will be fruitful. But for a start check the CSVN rules.

http://www.csvn.nl/nl/nieuws-mainmenu-2 ... t-ict-2013

[hgm]

There have to be a sane base for a discussion, with an exclusion attitude like yours it's unlikely it will be fruitful. But for a start check the CSVN rules.

http://www.csvn.nl/nl/nieuws-mainmenu-2 ... t-ict-2013

These rules are not really any different in spirit from the ICGA rules, right? In the end they allow and refuse the same programs.

[Rebel]

I do not consider copying the code of others to be "acceptable changing times." Sorry. Never will.

Well, I think that needs to be qualified a bit. Some code (open source) is actually intended to be copied. The current rule 2 is not really tailored to handle that case. The whole idea of open-source code is that it grows into an unorganized collective effort, to which people contribute year after year, until it grows into something good. Some contribute more, others contribute less. The one who started it doesn't always have to be the one that contributed most. It can not always be traced back who contributed something, and people that made important contributions could be dead or hiding.

So it is a bit impractical to require that everyone that contributed would have to give explicit written permission to enter that code in WCCC. And that would in practice exclude that code from participating, for no good reason I can see. Especially since in a legal sense the authors have already granted such permission through the open-source license they attached to their code.

So I think it would be a logical clarification of rule #2 to state that no further permission would be needed to run with open-source code other than the license agreement attached to it. Of course that does not mean the code should be allowed to run twice. But when such a conflict would occur, (and it remains to be seen whether it ever would), it could either be left at the discretion of the organizers to decide who to admit. (E.g. they could require a qualifier match between the incompatible contenders, or take the strongest based on a rating list, or the oldest.)

If there is good, original and fully legal code, it cannot be the purpose of rule #2 to exclude it from participating (once) based on some silly technicality. That would mean there is something wrong with rule #2, rather than with the code...

Makes sense. Applying to nowadays situation:

We know the Rybka origins of Houdini, it's fair to say Houdart (as only one) made something special (elo-wise) out the so called freeware. We know Don and Marco both have plundered Ippolit (Rybka basically) but written the extracted ideas in their own code in their own existing engine. Don suggested to accept only one derivative which is adopted by TCEC. Taking all this into consideration I can get along with that. Open source changed computer chess once and for all and pragmatism is required.

[Rebel]

There have to be a sane base for a discussion, with an exclusion attitude like yours it's unlikely it will be fruitful. But for a start check the CSVN rules.

http://www.csvn.nl/nl/nieuws-mainmenu-2 ... t-ict-2013

These rules are not really any different in spirit from the ICGA rules, right? In the end they allow and refuse the same programs.

Houdini (for example) would never be allowed under rule #2.

[hgm]

You don't believe Robert, when he says it is fully original?

2. Any other programmer from whom a contribution is present in the program must be mentioned in the registration together with the nature of their contribution. The use of such contributions must (obviously) be legitimate.

If so, it seems that CSVN rule #2 is just as devastating for it. Do you really think Robert would ever be willing to admit there are contributions from others in Houdini?

[Rebel]

You don't believe Robert, when he says it is fully original?

2. Any other programmer from whom a contribution is present in the program must be mentioned in the registration together with the nature of their contribution. The use of such contributions must (obviously) be legitimate.

If so, it seems that CSVN rule #2 is just as devastating for it. Do you really think Robert would ever be willing to admit there are contributions from others in Houdini?

The difference is that Houdini is never allowed to play in ICGA, in CSVN it has a chance even if Robert sticks to you know what. The origins of Houdini are public knowledge, the CSVN question is already answered.