ICGA WCCC prospects ...

[Mike S.]

Thanks for these infos; I didn't recall that correctly. Hopefully, there will be places & equipment for more participants again, in 2009.

@Ray, yes I agree, uniform platform would actually be better. - That raises a problem because ICGA would need to find a sponsor who provides the computers, in sufficient number. But if that is possible, I think normal quads would do.

[Mike S.]

That the public don't get the private books, would be an argument for standardized books... The world champion is advertised with the title, but (most) customers neither have the hardware nor the book from the WCh. package.

I didn't read anywhere that Levy said that it's to "pull back Rybka". I think that is only the interpretation of some; it makes no sense to me. ICGA organizes WCCC since 1974 and I don't see why they would suddenly want to pull back a particular engine. Also, Rybka is so superiour currently, even on single core.

[Mike S.]

There never was any interest of big scale anyway, in a WCCC, except in computer chess circles. Even in the chess world, a WCCC doesn't raise much interest.

Reasonable limitations make such a tournament certainly more interesting for customers, users, and normal chess players, than something which is lightyears away from anything they have at home.

It may be that some participants are absolutely not interested in any public interest and do chess programming only to impress other chess programmers. That is their choice and needs to be accepted. - Once, I have suggested to play tournaments where that approach prevails, in a secret bunker. Then, I wouldn't want to know anything about it and I wouldn't want World Champion badges on a box.

There, they could even standardize the engine with books and hardware remaining the differences. (Playchess' engine room actually almost works like that!)

If some programmers and others didn't get it yet, maybe they will get it now: If exclusive components, like absurd super hardware and top-secret "wonderbooks" (I don't need those), have big influence in the WCCC competition, it degrades both the title and the winning engine. That is what makes people lose interest in a WCCC.

Nothing against Junior, which is a good engine, but the big number of titles it collected while it never was the strongest engine, is the perfect illustration of that problem. (Shredder which won many titles too, was at least really the strongest engine, for some period of time).

[Nick C]

He quoted it as the reason here:

http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic. ... c&start=15


“The pro is that more programmers might be attracted. Paderborn was cancelled
 this year. One of the reasons was that there were only 5 or 6 programs that
 wanted to play. The organizers asked for reasons and many told that there is 
no point getting killed by Rybka running on 40 cores.

“The disadvantage of this is that it will hinder innovation on multi core
 machines and on clusters.”

Yes he was quoting someone else, but without this quote, he has no reason to even think about limiting hardware. Interesting that none of these programmers have come forwards.

[diep]

He quoted it as the reason here:

http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic. ... c&start=15


“The pro is that more programmers might be attracted. Paderborn was cancelled
 this year. One of the reasons was that there were only 5 or 6 programs that
 wanted to play. The organizers asked for reasons and many told that there is 
no point getting killed by Rybka running on 40 cores.

“The disadvantage of this is that it will hinder innovation on multi core
 machines and on clusters.”

Yes he was quoting someone else, but without this quote, he has no reason to even think about limiting hardware. Interesting that none of these programmers have come forwards.

This is just total untrue. The reason why it there were so little particiants was:

a) they keep it at a date where more than a year ago already ex-participants said from: "we prefer to be with our family instead of play at that date between Christmas and the new year". Some still showed up in 2007, but said: "in 2008 i will not show up if it gets organized at the same date".

b) None of the participants said something about hardware. Note that rybka never has had the fastest hardware in paderborn.

c) most computerchess organizers announce events WAY WAY too late. For a blitz event (international hypercube blitz tournament - 150-200 participants) i'm busy with now i'm already organizing way into 2010 now.

You should drop the word 'rybka'. This is not about rybka.

And forget 40 cores, it's 64 cores the machines that intel soon releases, and i bet that the Hiarcs team soon has a box like that also to connect to.

The processor, still under NDA, most likely is the beckton. It's 8 cores that split into 16 logical cores and just works MP, which means it only works in 4 socket mainboards. I'm not sure what clock it runs at, that's still under NDA.

Intel will demonstrate it all at an upcoming event together with other hardware.

The question i like to ask to everyone here, do you want the chessprogrammers to pay more money, because of some decision taken by Levy alone?

to Mike: there is way more factors you forget to consider. If you limit the number of cores, so if you do not standardize the hardware, then that just costs MORE money, because high clocked cpu's are the MOST EXPENSIVE cpu's.

Highest clocked production cpu is power6 at 4.9Ghz.

It eats about 6000 watt for 1 big node and for a $100k or so you can get a box with a few cores of it.

Note that hardware is not most important thing in computerchess nowadays. The impact of a good book is for example way more than whether you run on 8 cores or 800 cores. Hardware matters only when the differences between 2 programs are tiny. Especially it matters a lot when you let an engine play against itself (the so called "incest test" to quote Johan de Koning - not my words).

Yet of course everyone tries to do his best in every aspect of the game that influences the game. So you try to show up with good hardware.

For the nerds among you: reason why high clocked stuff is so expensive is because there is a relation O ( m ^ 3 ). So to get 1 Ghz higher is really very expensive as you have to put it to the power 3 with respect to power through the cpu and all kind of problems that start to exist (leakage etc). I'm not an expert enough there to explain that to you in a clear manner.

This is why we do not have 10Ghz production cpu's.

The thing that is very bad in limiting the total number of cores is
a) the timing, a few months before the world champs we suddenly get the email that the board being Levy, decided to limit things to 8 cores. Just when people have put MONEY and EFFORT in parallellizing their software for machines with more cores and/or other type of hardware.

but most important is
b) marketing. we get MORE attention as a worldchampionship when there is big hardware. TV, radio is suddenly interested if it is open hardware and shows up. In 2000 in London, the last "single processor microworldchampionship", there was NO ONE from the press for the computerchess.

Who is gonna look for a few nerds who play at retarded overclocked machines?

c) the equipment used to overclock is something you do NOT have at home. So believing that the hardware that actually shows up there is something you can buy in a shop is nonsense. Only some very big fanatics, who work for the government, they manage to achieve what is gonna show up there. So a limitation just means that the amateur engines like Sjeng and Jonny get hurt, it doesn't limit Hiarcs/Rybka.

d) the icga board is technoidiots. they never managed to correctly check hardware. I remember 2000 all too well. Back then it was still relative easy for a person to check. Now it is 2009, it is not so easy now. I would be very surprised if the board suddenly could.

e) As of today we do not even have a definition of what a 'core' is. And whether the box must be inside the tournament hall or is allowed to be remote. Is a 4 socket beckton machine allowed if you say you just use 8 cores out of it?

Is 8 fpga's allowed?

The tournament already happens in a few months time.

You guys realize that only teams with big sponsors can arrange a machine according to specs at last moment?

f) The ones who get impacted most by the new rules are the amateurs.
Now they must buy a 8 core box, next year a 16 core box?
Comeon, only the teams with sponsors can switch so easily.

What amateurs dislike most from events is when just operators show up, as operators ONLY show up if they can kick butt with an engine. There is very FEW operators who show EVER up when they cannot win. Now with Diep of course i manage to kick operators. but most amateurs cannot. What they are sick of, that is operators who get for free $1500 from icga for showing up there.

In 2008 world champs i understood there was at least 3 operators not from China to operate strong engines (Rybka, Hiarcs, Toga). I'm very sure without that $1500 for free odds would've been big that at least 2 out of 3 would not have shown up.

Vincent

[Bill Rogers]

Once upon a time as most stories go.... chess competitions were pretty fair in that they were only interested in which program was ctua lly stonger and played better chess. Today, however, that is no longer true.
Now it is a matter of who is made to play on the fastest computers made and or who has the best book no matter how deep the actually go.

Let me ask the community just what are opening lines of play or what may be consider an opening book? Can we say it is only the first 5 moves, 10 moves or can we even put a limit on it.

I still remember a tourneyment played in either 05 or 06 in which one program never left its book right up to mating its opponent. The program itself never once had to even calculate one move, it just replayed someone else moves that had been recorded in its book. That to me is not chess, it is just pure old fashioned Bull S....

We may never really know which chess program is actually the worlds best until the day they play on equal hardware and use the same opening books that are limited in depth.

I realize that there are a few (?) programmers who dissagree with me but in trying to be totally unbiased this makes the most sense to me. I won't ever watch a tournement where both hardware and books are unlimited simply because I am more interested in which program I can play on my little PC at home and it is not a dual core, a quad or anyother enhanced machine that is available today for a nice sum.

Bill


So now what happens if the makers of Rybka convince IBM to hard code their program into Big Blue? Would the rest of the worlds chess programmers just give up and never try again knowing that there is no way they could ever beat Big Blue.

[bob]

Once upon a time as most stories go.... chess competitions were pretty fair in that they were only interested in which program was ctua lly stonger and played better chess. Today, however, that is no longer true.
Now it is a matter of who is made to play on the fastest computers made and or who has the best book no matter how deep the actually go.

No idea where you get your information from, but computer chess has been as it is today, since it started. In 1976, my first ACM event, we had computers from one end of the spectrum all the way up to the CDC Cyber 176 that chess 4.x used. We had custom hardware in 1976 with the first version of Belle. Over the years we saw a single tournament have everything from a matchbox-sized computer to 60 million dollar Cray Supercomputers. In one event we had three Crays with three different programs in fact. Computer chess tournaments have _always_ had a wide range of hardware. Books from very small, to very large (in 1980 or so Belle had the biggest book around). We had custom books. We planned book traps for each other. Etc. Just like today. So I personally see no difference today than what I encountered in 1976 at the ACM tournament in Texas.

Let me ask the community just what are opening lines of play or what may be consider an opening book? Can we say it is only the first 5 moves, 10 moves or can we even put a limit on it.

I know grandmasters that can recall entire games with side variations. Do we not allow them to do that? And how do we do so? These same GMs have teams working on opening preparation when getting ready for a WCCC event. Do we allow that? How do we stop it?

I still remember a tourneyment played in either 05 or 06 in which one program never left its book right up to mating its opponent. The program itself never once had to even calculate one move, it just replayed someone else moves that had been recorded in its book. That to me is not chess, it is just pure old fashioned Bull S....

Yes it is. But not by the player you think. Why would you have your program play into a dead lost game???

We may never really know which chess program is actually the worlds best until the day they play on equal hardware and use the same opening books that are limited in depth.

I realize that there are a few (?) programmers who dissagree with me but in trying to be totally unbiased this makes the most sense to me. I won't ever watch a tournement where both hardware and books are unlimited simply because I am more interested in which program I can play on my little PC at home and it is not a dual core, a quad or anyother enhanced machine that is available today for a nice sum.

Bill


So now what happens if the makers of Rybka convince IBM to hard code their program into Big Blue? Would the rest of the worlds chess programmers just give up and never try again knowing that there is no way they could ever beat Big Blue.

Nope. Nobody gave up as deep thought was pounding everyone year after year. This is no different today with Rybka, and Rybka too shall pass and someone will take its place.

[Mike S.]

I know grandmasters that can recall entire games with side variations. Do we not allow them to do that? And how do we do so?

We don't need to stop GMs from doing anything, but it can make sense to apply different rules to computer tournaments than to human tournaments. - About the topic of opening books:

What exactly is an opening? And more specifically, how long is it, in terms of moves, where does it end?

I am almost sure that we will agree that the sense of opening books is, to support the engines with just that - the opening - because it is required for various reasons. Ok. But we need to distinguish between what's really the opening, and what's the (early) middlegame already, etc. The opening theory may go far beyond the opening in many variations, but that aren't opening moves anymore.

The opening is not 30 moves and not even 20 moves. Please take a look at this (a symbolic illustration):

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2BPPB2/2N2N2/PPPQ1PPP/3RR1K1 b kq - 0 10

The opening is finished! - White requires 10 moves to reach this position. Of course, with "interference" by Black maybe he'd need one or two extra moves for a similar developement. That is why I think that if it is really about the opening (and about nothing else), a limitation of 12 or max. 15 full moves should be sufficient and should be introduced in important computer chess tournaments.

As an even more radical proposal, I would standardize books, in other words same book for all, but I am aware that this will probably never get a majority of votes. - But a book depth limitation should be considered.

If that is absolutely NOT what the participants want, than they should eventually think about awarding the title to the winner's book author, not to the engine programmer...

[George Tsavdaris]

I know grandmasters that can recall entire games with side variations. Do we not allow them to do that? And how do we do so?

We don't need to stop GMs from doing anything, but it can make sense to apply different rules to computer tournaments than to human tournaments.

Why?
It doesn't make sense to me that GMs must be allowed to play their best Chess while as per your proposal, computers should not be allowed to do that.

Evolution goes ahead and not behind. Why we should apply any measures to make it go behind?
I want to see the best quality of Chess possible. Period.
And having 1700 cores if possible, a 40 GB opening book and 7 piece EGTBs keeps up with that purpose.
If others can't follow it it's their problem and we shall not keep evolution behind because some can't follow it.

I am almost sure that we will agree that the sense of opening books is, to support the engines with just that - the opening -

No i don't agree at all.
You stick at semantics. Forget about semantics! Forget about the word "Opening" in the meaning of "Opening Books".
The sense of opening books is to make the engine play better. Period again.

Opening books save a huge time. Contain very deep analyzed good moves to be played instantly, contain very deep analyzed moves to be avoided instantly, contain moves that engine is known to do well with.
They improve engine's strength. It's a part of what we say a Computer Chess player.

A "Computer Chess" player is: The CPU, the opening book, the EGTBs, the software of course(what we call Chess Engine), the RAM of the computer, any learning files there might be and some others things probably to help the Computer Chess player to play as better Chess as it can.

What you propose is to cripple computer's Chess abilities. Why?

Remember is not an "Chess Engines" tournament, but a "Computer Chess" tournament(that of ICGA).
And all you, want to make it a "Chess Engines" tournament.
I can't understand why....

[Harvey Williamson]

I spoke with Marc Uniacke online

I asked Mark about this he says that he has not spoken to you.