ICGA's 2015 World Computer Chess Championship/Events

[Michel]

The only problem I have with your characterization of the scientific method is that you are not explicitly acknowledging the importance of observation in the formulation of hypotheses.

I would say that an experiment (or measurement) counts as an observation. But you are right that observation is more general. For example much of what we observe in the universe cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Formulation of hypotheses would count as a potential refinement of an existing theory (if there is one). Such a refinement may be rejected by further experiments/observations.

The fallacy of Lucas and Marco is that they believe that a scientific theory is either "right" or "wrong". By definition no scientific theory is right. Any theory should be viewed as only an approximation to reality. Everyone knows Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by general relativity but Newtonian mechanics occurs as a limit of general relativity and it still describes perfectly 99.999% or our observable world. So characterizing Newtonian mechanics as "wrong" in one's signature because it does not account for some extremely subtle phenomena is simply idiotic.

[Adam Hair]

The only problem I have with your characterization of the scientific method is that you are not explicitly acknowledging the importance of observation in the formulation of hypotheses.

I would say that an experiment (or measurement) counts as an observation. But you are right that observation is more general. For example much of what we observe in the universe cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

Formulation of hypotheses would count as a potential refinement of an existing theory (if there is one). Such a refinement may be rejected by further experiments/observations.

The fallacy of Lucas and Marco is that they believe that a scientific theory is either "right" or "wrong". By definition no scientific theory is right. Any theory should be viewed as only an approximation to reality. Everyone knows Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by general relativity but Newtonian mechanics occurs as a limit of general relativity and it still describes perfectly 99.999% or our observable world. So characterizing Newtonian mechanics as "wrong" in one's signature because it does not account for some extremely subtle phenomena is simply idiotic.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the initial observation(s) that provide the genesis of a new theory:

Observation -> (Theory -> Prediction -> Experiment -> Refine Theory : repeat)

[Michel]

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the initial observation(s) that provide the genesis of a new theory:

Yes sorry, I now realize that. I was thinking in terms of established scientific theories (which exist in many fields).

I assume you are specifically referring to computer chess. In computer chess there is currently simply no theory to speak off (although many people here present their dogmas as undisputable truth). To start nobody understands why minimax search is so effective in chess. The success of the tuning methods in Gaviota (to which you are contributing!) and Texel "suggests" that is is good to have a static evaluation reflecting the statistical properties of a position. But there is theoretically no reason why such "objective evaluaton" would propagate through search (min/max are functions which are notoriously difficult to handle statistically). In other words if you think of the static evaluation as somehow statistically summarizing what a deeper search would reveal then you run into contradictions.

So yes. Personally I appreciate very much the experiments you (and Kai Laskos) are doing!

BTW. What people refer to as "theory" in computer chess is actually tree search algorithms which is really mathematics (or perhaps theoretical computer science). But as I said above, nobody understands why tree search + static evaluation produces a good chess program.

[Gerd Isenberg]

Hi Frank,
As often, you tend to exaggerate a bit
But thanks for your very kind words.

Cheers,
Gerd

[hgm]

Rather the other way around. SF will not participate in this tournament, because it's a big farce. Everything about this ICGA tournament is wrong:
* one game elimination = statistically meaningless results
* we would have to fly to Leiden with our hardware + hotel for a week, at our own expense. all that for what? to prove that SF can beat the shit out of all these patzer like Pandix, Crafty, Nightmare, Hiarcs, Junior etc.
* different hardware and different book, makes comparisons meaningless.

SF team should never lower themselves to participate in any ICGA event, IMO. ICGA is a dying dinosaur. Live and let die.

The only world championship is TCEC, and that's what we look forward to.

Your post wouldn't past any "fishtest". You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
In ICGA tournaments your hardware setup can reside anywhere on the planet, as long as you are able to connect to it from the tournament hall. Hint: they do provide internet connection. You don't have to bring your hardware there.
Somone obviously still would have to fly over to Leiden to operate Stockfish. I have no clue about actual current regulations but amateur entries usually used to get some financial ICGA support when it is about this.

Actually even this is not true. It is sufficient to appoint a local operator who lives next door to the tournament venue, or goes there anyway, with his laptop, and organize a big machine. I probably could arrange it within a day, and it would be practically free. And let's be honest: we wouldn't really want the currently dominant members of the Stockfish team to mingle with normal people. That would be a very painful experience...

And it seems to be conveniently ignored above that Stockfish wouldn't just have to beat the shit out of Pandix, but also out of Komodo...

The title "world championship" is a lable that depends on the credibility ( of the public) connected with the event. It is difficult to beat the fact that FIDE recognizes ICGA events when it is about this.
The philosophy behind these events is that whatever you can come up with and that abides by the tournament rules is valid. Why do you consider hardware and book meaningless then? Especially as the Stockfish guys flamed Crafty for not scaling too well on 16+ cores just a few days ago? The ability to use big hardware to your advantage is part of the challenge.
Book is similar. I wouldn't know how to provide Stockfish with a decent opening book myself, as I'd see a decent chance to weaken it with any human intervention, but if someone could come up with an opening book that helps its performance, that's kind of creative work too and part of the silicon chess entity participating.
Everyone using the same book is clearly not the only kind of fair setup that can be conceived.
The setup of TCEC is just as arbitrary as that of an ICGA event ( I won't go into this now).
But it is clearly evident from the past that e.g. underestimating Junior in an ICGA event is clearly not that great an idea, even when you are way ahead of it in some rating list with your engine. To use an analogy from the human chessworld: Kasparov should have beaten Kramnik like a stepchild in 2000 rating-wise, yet it was not to be.

[Ralph Stoesser]

Kommodo 9 @ICGA but not Stockfish? How exciting... What do you think who will win?

[Evert]

you guys should consider changing the title of this "2015 World Computer Chess Championship" because it clearly is not. It is a tournament where authors get together and discuss things; is that not a major focal point of this tournament? Why on earth do you guys seriously have a title like this when your tournament will not actually show who the REAL engine champion is?

This isn't rocket-science people.

The winner of the "world championship" gets to call themselves "winner of the world championship", or "world champion" for short.
The number one of the world ranking list gets to call themselves "no 1 ranked in the world" or "best in the world" for short.

These are not the same thing. Now, normally, you would expect the number one in the world to also win the world championship, but this is not a given, in any sports event. Either way, a necessary condition to win something is to compete in it. If someone thinks something is irrelevant because they don't compete in it, that's fine (it's breathtakingly arrogant though) but then they don't get to complain about it if the decision to not participate was their own (which would be both breathtakingly arrogant and hypocritical).

Now personally, I don't really care who calls themselves world champion and who calls themselves number one in the world - and I'm utterly sick of people getting into heated emotional arguments over it. Get a life people.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Kommodo 9 @ICGA but not Stockfish? How exciting... What do you think who will win?

Komodo is far too strong for all of the other ICGA participants. It should win quite easily.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Gerd,

I know, I am older from year to year ... but I am not blind.

Best
Frank

[Rebel]

Now personally, I don't really care who calls themselves world champion and who calls themselves number one in the world

Maybe, just maybe, you will change your mind when your creation becomes as strong as SF and Komodo.

- and I'm utterly sick of people getting into heated emotional arguments over it. Get a life people.

For many many people this (the strongest engine) was (and still is) the spark that set the CC fire in motion.