That's an interesting point for debate. IMHO deference should go to the original author. And unless he has been inactive a while, I'd suspect everyone would go along with that. Should the original author choose to not participate, then the derivative should certainly be allowed in. I don't think the original author should get a veto, he should just get right of first refusal, so that he can play if he wants, otherwise a derivative gets in...hgm wrote:Sure, one can imagine some conflicts. The same code should not be allowed to participate twice. But it can be left at the discretion of the organizers to decide what to do. It is not sure this would ever be a problem in practice, and it seems silly to base your policies on hypothetical problems.bob wrote:There is a caveat for that. For example, take A, an original program that is open-source, and B, a program that was derived from A. B CAN enter WCCC events with the permission of A's author. B would NOT be allowed if A was also entered.
I am not quite sure how GPL would be used to deal with the case of A and B both wanting to enter. The intent has always been one program from a single author (or team of authors).
To me it would not be obvious that A would have priority over B, if B was known to be stronger. If the author of A would have wanted to keep the rights to veto the sue others want to make of his code, he should not have GPL'ed it. The GPL actually forbids putting any restrictions on the use of the code altogether, other than publishing the source. So the restriction "you cannot enter this code in a WCCC unless I say so" seems illegal.
If cases like this would occur, the organizers can for instance make the teams that want to use the same piece of code take turns: if A participated in one event, the next year B would have priority over A. In case neither of them ever participated, take the strongest according to rating lists, or simply draw straws. It doesn't sound like an unworkable method at all.
World Chess Computer Champion?
Moderator: Ras
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
Please re-read your post. It is not clear to me at all where you stand. You talk about "relic rules" in one sentence, and "programmer's pledge" in another. How about a precise explanation of what you think rule 2 should look like today. I happen to agree it needs rewriting. But I don't think it needs rewriting to make derivatives acceptable, it needs rewriting to more clearly spell out exactly what is or is not allowable. For example "typing the source code does NOT make it original, in and of itself." WRITING the source code does make it original in some circumstances, perhaps not in others. Etc.Rebel wrote:Bob,bob wrote:So this is yet another "derivatives should be allowed" whine? On one hand, you have your "pledge" to not do this, on the other hand, you think derivatives should be welcome at WCCC events. Sort of hard to figure out exactly which side of the fence you are on any particular day.
There is no need to rehash this, everyone who has followed the events of the last 2½ years knows for what I stand, you in particular.
Rather than slinging that "relic rule" insult around, propose something that can actually be discussed.
-
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:22 pm
- Location: Singapore
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
I think the problem is that Mark, you see the world in black and white.mwyoung wrote:What was the price of tea from 1993 to 2005? This question is just as relevant to this thread regarding Komodo.jhellis3 wrote:So who was the world champion in (human) chess from 1993 to 2005?
I will answer your question, you are transparent to me.
Anatoly Karpov 1993–1999
Alexander Khalifman 1999–2000
Viswanathan Anand 2000–2002
Ruslan Ponomariov 2002–2004
Rustam Kasimdzhanov 2004–2005
Veselin Topalov 2005–2006
There is no absolute answer to "Who was the world champion between 1993 and 2006" because the title was disputed. To give any answer at all is to delude yourself.
A world championship is only a world championship if there is popular agreement about it. IGCA had that popular credibility until they lost it in recent years. Since then, I would say the Computer Chess World Championship, has been in a "disputed state". So, if you think HIARCS is the rightful champion (based on IGCA), or if you think Komodo is the rightful champion (based on TCEC), or if you think Houdini is the rightful champion (based on rating lists), it is all fine, because there is no rightful champion. The official title has lost it's value so whichever camp you're in, you're neither right nor wrong. It is your opinion.
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:08 pm
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
To follow up, the komodochess.com website now says "Winner of the 2013 TCEC tournament!". I have emailed Martin to get his opinion if this is OK, or if he wants us to add "Fall" or "Season 5" to the headline. We do not want any confusion with other events.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
Based on this kind of logic, why not just use something like CCRL or SSDF and name the #1 program on one of those "world champion" Lot more games than either TCEC or WCCC.Harvey Williamson wrote:Leagues last months. World Championships and Olympic games etc tend to last a couple of weeks.mjlef wrote: I personally feel the results from Martin’s excellent TCEC tournament are more meaningful than the very time limited WCCC. It would simply be too expensive to organize and run an in-person tournament that lasts months. TCEC lets more programs compete and for a much larger number of games to get closer to an accurate winner.
Mark
the WCCC was never thought of as an "absolute best". The human WCC is better organized and it still has had its sub-optimal winners here and there. A tournament is a tournament, nothing more, nothing less...
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
Wccc is not in a disputed state. No one is awarding wccc titles except icga.arjuntemurnikar wrote:I think the problem is that Mark, you see the world in black and white.mwyoung wrote:What was the price of tea from 1993 to 2005? This question is just as relevant to this thread regarding Komodo.jhellis3 wrote:So who was the world champion in (human) chess from 1993 to 2005?
I will answer your question, you are transparent to me.
Anatoly Karpov 1993–1999
Alexander Khalifman 1999–2000
Viswanathan Anand 2000–2002
Ruslan Ponomariov 2002–2004
Rustam Kasimdzhanov 2004–2005
Veselin Topalov 2005–2006
There is no absolute answer to "Who was the world champion between 1993 and 2006" because the title was disputed. To give any answer at all is to delude yourself.
A world championship is only a world championship if there is popular agreement about it. IGCA had that popular credibility until they lost it in recent years. Since then, I would say the Computer Chess World Championship, has been in a "disputed state". So, if you think HIARCS is the rightful champion (based on IGCA), or if you think Komodo is the rightful champion (based on TCEC), or if you think Houdini is the rightful champion (based on rating lists), it is all fine, because there is no rightful champion. The official title has lost it's value so whichever camp you're in, you're neither right nor wrong. It is your opinion.
TCEC is not disputing the icga wccc championship by awarding titles and has said so here. Official or unofficial.
I don't know about seeing in black and white. But I can see Komodo claim of being any kind of world champion is a out right lie. Because Komodo did not base his claim on winning TECE, since TCEC is not in dispute with the ICGA.
I stand corrected this is black and white. Komodo won no tournament awarding world titles official or unofficial. Komodo claimed world champion status on its own. That makes Komodo a liar.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
You keep making that pronouncement - the ICGA is no longer recognized. I believe making such a claim is well above your pay grade. The primary ones that are dissatisfied are those that are Rybka supporters. Nothing wrong with being a Rybka supporter, but to try to claim the ICGA is irrelevant because it disqualified Rybka for breaking its own internal rules is a bit of a stretch.Rebel wrote:Harvey,Harvey Williamson wrote:Leagues last months. World Championships and Olympic games etc tend to last a couple of weeks.
Every self respecting sport has a body that is recognized and endorsed by the vast majority of sportsmen / women. What once was since 2011 is no longer. Whatever the reason you have to act.
Complaining about a lack of participation is also a bit disingenuous, because there is no way to coerce programmers to enter. In "the good old days" those of us that were active were looking forward to participating in these events, for me they represented the high point of the year regarding computer chess. But that is something that comes from WITHIN an author, not from outside. And apparently a few "don't have it". And "we" can't give it to "them". They either get it for themselves, or they don't. Whining about their lack of participation is a waste of time. Many have dropped by the wayside over the years. It happens.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
Most just quote the name of the tournament and claim to be the winner. There was a time when the ACM events were stronger/bigger than WCCC events. But we just claimed "won 1984 ACM north american computer chess championship" or whatever the event of the time was. Winner of the 2013 TCEC would be just fine.mjlef wrote:How would you word it? It was a global championship which Komodo won. But 2013 TCEC Global Chess Engine Champion seems more confusing than accurate.Gerd Isenberg wrote:Still World Champion? I see, I misunderstood your adjustment.Gerd Isenberg wrote:Thanks, Mark.mjlef wrote:However, to prevent any confusion, we will adjust the title to reflect TCEC. We also need to post results of CCT which Komodo also won.
Mark
And don't forget CCT15!
Gerd
2013 TCEC World Chess Engine Champion!
2013 World Computer Chess Engine Champion!
and #1 Rating with broken link, where the current link shows #3.
It's not OK for my taste, but its your business. Good luck.
-
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:22 pm
- Location: Singapore
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
Are you living under a rock?mwyoung wrote: Wccc is not in a disputed state.
dis·pute (dĭ-spyo̅o̅t′)
v. dis·put·ed, dis·put·ing, dis·putes
v.tr.
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt: Her friends disputed her intentions.
The very fact that this thread is so active and so hotly debated (by both sides equally) is enough to satisfy the definition of "disputed".
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: World Chess Computer Champion?
But it is my understanding the dispute or debte is over regarding Komodo. And Komodo is correcting its web site in regards to claiming wccc status.arjuntemurnikar wrote:Are you living under a rock?mwyoung wrote: Wccc is not in a disputed state.
dis·pute (dĭ-spyo̅o̅t′)
v. dis·put·ed, dis·put·ing, dis·putes
v.tr.
1. To argue about; debate.
2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt: Her friends disputed her intentions.
The very fact that this thread is so active and so hotly debated (by both sides equally) is enough to satisfy the definition of "disputed".
I would start a new thread on icga. If you and others have a Axe to grind with them. I don't in regards to them being able to name the world champion. Just because a faction does not like icga rules. Does not mean there is no icga and title. No one has ever organized a group to ever dispute the icga title process.
So the ICGA WCCC title is not disputed. Not by TCEC, or Komodo it seems.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.