Why don't strong engines enter WCCC?

[Engin]

...and if you look at grahams Eight-Headed Monsters II 8CPU (9 Round Swiss)

Tornado gets a draw vs Gull and CRASH Deep Junior on same equal hardware and conditions 8 cpu vs 8 cpu !

even Tornado can win a WCC easy if it get 5000 cores where others playing with only 1-32 cores.

[Frank Quisinsky]

What you wrote is an other point of view.
I am thinking too that CC got from professionals programmers, companys not so many Innovation. Other situation in the first years ...

More creativity bye amateurs in the past and most of good ideas comes from amateurs too.

But all in all ...
I am thinking that a good mix between professionals and amateurs are important. Biggest Problem here ... the professionals trying so search own ways again and again.

In the posting before I am meaning that we need professionals in organisation of events. ICGA can more do but the old ICGA guys blocked the elan the community have. But it's in our hand to make such things better.

[hgm]

1. to expensive to travel to far countries without sponsors that don't support you to play.

Actually there often was sponsor money for the participants. I never applied for it, because I did not need it.

2. it makes not sense to play with UN-EQUAL hardwares, where one is playing with 1 core or max 32 cores and one comes and playing with 1000 cores or even more, thats unfair against others and of course that who has more cores will sure win.

On some editions of the WCCC there was a hardware limit of 8 cores, imposed exactly for the reasons you mention. Many participants objected to this, however. This is why there now is a separate WCSC on uniform hardware.

3. the rules are to hard and let you do step back from it, because you don't know what they will do with your source code to check it. Some of us programmers (not open sources) will not allow to show at your source code.

I don't quite understand this. What can they do to check it? They just compare it to source code from other programs. What else can they do? They are not going to sell it... Or do you mean you are afraid that they show it to a competitor, who will steal all your innovative tricks? I am pretty sure it can be negociated who can examine the code when such a case arises.

[Sedat Canbaz]

I see that Deep Junior won WCCC 13. Where is Stockfish? Houdini? Gull? Others, who can completely CRUSH Deep Junior?

Hello Syed,

First of all,
I am shocked from your chess activities!
Your main threads are very interesting topics indeed!

Thanks... !

And now about the current issue (as I mentioned before),
WCCC organization made a BIG mistake regarding Rybka issue, very sad news indeed ...
We lost Vasik Rajlich (a real genius in chess programming)

And after Rybka banning...
WCCC organization lost its popularity and started to go down: collapse !!
Exception WCCC organization, even the commercial programs are affcected a lot!
Probably due to: because Ippo is appeared on the scene...!)

And now I am not sure what will be the solution, but I think for the near future:
- We will not see a real World Championship based on the stroggest participants!


BTW,
In my opinion, a 'real' World Computer Chess Championship should be:
- Organized by Chess Engine teams via online server
- Live broadcasting tools (installed on same tournament PC) should not be allowed,
*Because we can't be sure how much the engines are affecting by those live tools on same PC
- Based on available 'original' MP engines (Rybka,Stockfish,Houdini,Komodo,Gull etc... should be definitely as participants)
- Tournament type should be Swiss system (9 rounds)
- The participants should be run with 'Slow time control' and definitely with Ponder ON
- The participants should be played definitely with their 'Own' opening books
...

Hopes this helps...

Best,
Sedat

[hgm]

And after Rybka banning...
WCCC organization lost its popularity and started to go down: collapse !!
Exception WCCC organization, even the commercial programs are affcected a lot!
Probably due to: because Ipoo is appeared on the scene...!)

The factual number of WCCC participants in various years shows that the Rybka affair did not really have much impact:

Code: Select all

2013 Yokohama   Japan            6
2011 Tilburg    The Netherlands  9
2010 Kanazawa   Japan           10
2009 Pamplona   Spain           11
2008 Beijing    China           10
2007 Amsterdam  The Netherlands 12
2006 Turin      Italy           18
2005 Reykjavík  Iceland         12

2011 was the first year where Rybka was suspended. As you can see there is only one fewer participant as in 2010, when Rybka did participate. (Guess which one! )

Part of the decline is due to the fact that I stopped participating in 2010. (I did participate in 2007 and 2009.) This had nothing to do with Rybka or Ippolit, but only with Shokidoki (which did not exist yet in 2009).

In Turin the turnout was larger, but this was due to 6 Italian participants (all ending in the lower half), where normally there are none. Computer Chess is quite popular in Italy.

The only edition with below-normal participation was Yokohama 2013, and the fact that it was in Japan, and that due to the economic crisis little sponsor money was available for supporting participants will surely have had an impact there.

So it seems far more important where you conduct the event than who you ban...

In my opinion, a 'real' World Computer Chess Championship should be:
- Organized by Chess Engine teams via online server
- Live broadcasting tools (installed on same PC) should not be allowed,
*Because we can't be sure how much the engines are affecting by those live tools on same PC
- Based on available 'original' MP engines (Rybka,Stockfish,Houdini,Komodo,Gull etc... should be definitely as participants)
- Tournament type should be Swiss system (9 rounds)
- The participants should be run with 'Slow time control' and definitely with Ponder ON
- The participants should be played definitely with their 'Own' opening books
...

Such formats have been tried, and they attracted even fewer participants than WCCC.

Your attitude towards life broadcasting seems a pure superstition. You might not know how it affects engines, but most testers do, and you can be sure that the engine programmers do. And anyway, if they play on their own hardware through an on-line server, it is their own business what else they want to do on that computer.

[Sedat Canbaz]

Yes...that's true, sad that overall not many players are participating in WCCC !
And I agree with Jon Dart, probably due to is not so cheap to participate...

But however,
Once more I'd like to mention: there is serious fall in WCCC
Especially look at 2013 Yokohama,
And as we see only 6 (six) players in the latest one !!

And you are talking about the economic crisis...
But what about for 18th WCCC Kanazawa 2010?
In that year, there was also economic crisis and again it was organized in Japan!
But as we see: 10 players are participated!!

About live tools,
Of course I am not 100% against the live broadcasting tools on same tournament PC
In this case, we need a very light broadcasting live tool, where the speed to be affected less than 5 %
For example, many LIVE broadcasting tools affect a lot the processor speed, approx. - 20 % -25 %

Actually, there is solution to run the engines at maximum full performance in LIVE:
-Using external broadcasting PC (I use always this system in case of SCCT LIVE)

[Sedat Canbaz]

One thing more,
Even SCCT Book Tournaments are affected..(including Playchess engine room)

For example, during Rybka days (before banning Rybka),
I was receiving more than 50 book registrations from different book makers around the world
And nowadays this number of book registrations is fallen to half...

In other words,
It is not due to economic crisis...just because many many people were disappointed with banning Rybka...
And for solution: we need urgently Vasik Rajlich on the scene again )) !!

[Sedat Canbaz]

Just 'd like to add,
In case of allowing or not... some of the top chess engines in the next WCCC

Code: Select all

sim version 3
------ Komodo32 1.1 JA (depth: 2, scale: 1.0) ------
61.63  Strelka R-3-E (Rybka-3-Eval) (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.34  IPPOLIT 0.080a (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.32  Belka 2.0.0 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
57.89  RobboLito verzione 085F1 w32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
57.84  Murka 3 w32 UCI (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
57.05  IvanHoe 9.76b w32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
57.03  Igorrit 0.086v8_w32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.98  Vitruvius_1.11C_HEM_x32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.72  Naum 4.2 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.70  Houdini 1.5 w32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.66  LEOpard 0.7c (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.36  Critter 1.2 32-bit (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.25  Fire 1.31 w32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.22  Daydreamer 1.75 JA (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
55.67  DeepSaros version 4.1.6 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
55.57  Bouquet 1.8 x32 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)


sim version 3
------ Fruit 2.1 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0) ------
78.87 Loop 13.6 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
74.79 Gambit Fruit 1.0 Beta 4bx (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
73.56 Deep Onno 1-2-70 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
68.84 Alaric 707 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
68.60 ECE 11.01 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
68.06 Toga II 1.3x4 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
67.72 Strelka 2.0 B (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
67.70 Belka 2.0.0 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
63.73 GarboChess v2.20 x86 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
63.55 Naum 4 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
62.21 Rotor 0.6 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
61.94 Cyclone 1.0 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
61.88 Daydreamer 1.75 JA (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
61.86 N2 0.4 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
61.77 Twisted Logic 20080404x (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
59.65 Pupsi2 v0.08 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
59.47 Glaurung 2-epsilon/5 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.85 Stockfish 1.4 JA (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.80 Ayito 0.2.994 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.57 Atlas 2.90 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.34 Umko 1.2 i686 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
58.08 Gull 1.0a (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
57.26 Komodo32 1.0 JA (Doch32) (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.76 Doch32 1.2 JA (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.58 Murka 2 w32 UCI (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.34 Atlas 3.14b (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.28 Philou Version 3.6 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
56.19 Naum 4 (depth: 3, scale: 1.0)
55.84 bright-0.2c (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
55.73 Movei00_8_438 (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)


sim version 3
------ TwinFish 0.07 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0) ------
 52.25  Stockfish 070114 64 SSE4.2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 47.54  Houdini 4 x64 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 47.51  Bouquet 1.8 x64 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 47.20  Komodo TCECr 64-bit  (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 47.17  Fire 3.0 x64 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 46.71  IvanHoe-Beta 999946h6 x64 Tr (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 45.65  Chiron 2 64bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 44.62  Protector 1.6.0 x64 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 44.11  DiscoCheck 5.2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 39.80  Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)

Note: I could not find Rybka 3 sim test results (depth: 2, scale: 1.0)
And If anybody has Rybka 3 sim results ...it will be great to see and compare
But as far as I remember, some top engines have a lot of relationships and similarities with Rybka 3))
Note also that Pia's site is down since several days:
https://sites.google.com/site/sites/sys ... -version-3


And as we see,
There is a possibility (with a very good camouflaging) any engine to be released with low similarities
TwinFish clearly proves my point...which is 100 % clone and based on Stockfish engine

To be honest,
I don't care too much what will say programmers for Rybka and Houdini
About they are clones or not...to be 6 years 'unbeatable' explains us everything )) !!

Just to make it more clear
I care more about those engine sim test results, e.g before appearing Don's sim test tool )) !!

And in case of not allowing Rybka and Houdini in the next WCCC,
Again there will be sad news and double standard with allowing Stockfish, Komodo, Gull...

And as I mention before, in my opinion:
Stockfish, Komodo, Gull are original work, but created in a similar way as Rybka and Houdini!
I believe in that, those top chess engines (exception their own original ideas), they include codes from Rybka (Ippo)
And of course I don't claim that Rybka and Houdini are 100 % original, they also include codes from other engines
In other words, there is no any top chess engine which is 100 % original and to be based 100% on own ideas !!!

Otherwise, we should be very very naive...if we can't see the reallity...!!

The clear proof that I am 100 % right:
1)Please check my published sim test results, you can see the similarity and relationship... ))!!
2)All these top engines (Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini, Gull...) are become stronger than Rybka (after Ippo release)


Of course there is a possibility that I may be wrong...but then I wonder too:
- Why before Ippo release ...those mentioned top chess engines were weaker ???

And last,
I don't belong to any chess engine team, but it makes really very sad,
In case of any injustice, especially against one of the best programmers


Hopes this helps too...


Greetings,
Sedat

[hgm]

And as I mention before, in my opinion:
Stockfish, Komodo, Gull are original work, but created in a similar way as Rybka and Houdini!
I believe in that, those top chess engines (exception their own original ideas), they include codes from Rybka (Ippo)
And of course I don't claim that Rybka and Houdini are 100 % original, they also include codes from other engines
In other words, there is no any top chess engine which is 100 % original and to be based 100% on own ideas !!!

The problem of course is that 'opinions' are worth zilch. Opinions are good for politics and elections. In computer programming it are the facts that count.

[Sedat Canbaz]

And as I mention before, in my opinion:
Stockfish, Komodo, Gull are original work, but created in a similar way as Rybka and Houdini!
I believe in that, those top chess engines (exception their own original ideas), they include codes from Rybka (Ippo)
And of course I don't claim that Rybka and Houdini are 100 % original, they also include codes from other engines
In other words, there is no any top chess engine which is 100 % original and to be based 100% on own ideas !!!

The problem of course is that 'opinions' are worth zilch. Opinions are good for politics and elections. In computer programming it are the facts that count.

Agreed...

Just I'd like to add and to mention once more,
I don't care too much what will say programmers about Houdini and Rybka

And the fact: Don's sim tool results !!!